Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/18/09 08:28 PM, afuckingname wrote:

At 4/16/09 04:57 AM, kraor024 wrote:
Are you fucking stupid? methamphetamine is not lysergic acid diethylamide,

amphetamines are mentioned, and other drugs that werent mentioned, so the government or public wouldn't know

I wasn't aware these groups handed out meth, however I must state methamphetamine was not considered as dangerous as it is today as as evidence it was commonly prescribed for a verity of reasons that today it can not be prescribed for.

and of coruse there was harm done. they ingested the drugs

Who ever said there wasn't harm?

Also tweakers don't worry where their next fix is coming from, METH is fucking everywhere, at most they worry about where the money for it is coming from.

like every addict has multiple sources that are always available?

I've never done meth I have at least three people who I can get it from right now & I'd bet if I put the word out I can get it from someone I don't know within the hour.

but it seems this topic is mostly focused on who makes the best meth

Pfizer!

At 4/15/09 08:15 PM, afuckingname wrote: about the meth and new addicts, the current addicts would for sure know where they'll get thier next hit. and it will be like this all over again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merry_Prank sters

Are you fucking stupid? methamphetamine is not lysergic acid diethylamide, many political/social groups handed out LSD & other hallucinogens in hopes that it would make people think differently about "current" society. Methamphetamine is not known to change someones perception of reality(after one use at least), hallucinogens however are.
Also tweakers don't worry where their next fix is coming from, METH is fucking everywhere, at most they worry about where the money for it is coming from.

At 4/14/09 08:27 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 4/14/09 04:36 PM, kraor024 wrote:
Tobacco has a very small black market & it is one of the most heavily taxed products I buy.

They are only recently taxing it and it's still not that expensive and fairly safe.

I should have asked before hand what you meant by "taxing them as little as possible" if you mean that literally 'cause then I have to disagree.I would agree that they do have to be taxed reasonably, they should be taxed just low enough to where legitimate business can out compete the illegitimate business, by that I mean that the Illegal drug dealers can not out price the legitimate & still make a high enough profit margin to be worth the risk.

many hard drugs have shown no risk of dependency

This may be a fact and something I overlook. Maybe the image I have of drugs is media fed and hard drugs are actually harmless pills that become dangerous only if you OD on it. Speed may as well be not any different from redbull and XTC may as well be a vitamin pill if you take only one.

I wouldn't call ANY drug 'harmless' & many illegal drugs carry a very high degree of risk, but all drug use whether or it be legal, illegal, medical, or recreational comes with some degree of risk.
The hard drugs that I've researched that don't have a risk of dependency are all hallucinogens such as LSD or psilocybin, funny thing is I was led to believe acid was incredibly dangerous do to high risk of overdose, (somewhat hard to do especially with street grade acid) & acid induced mental illnesses (schizophrenia) even after just one use, e & of course it was highly addictiveNow acid isn't safe it has many risks involved with its use including flashback as well as some mental disorders(associated w/ prolonged use), but it is non addictive & relatively speaking not that lethal.

At 4/14/09 09:47 PM, MisterRPG wrote:
Much like stock markets, black markets shift. They profit on what earns them money. Reducing one source of profit doesn't change anything on a meaningful level, most importantly because it never goes out of business.

Much like stock markets black markets are finite & thus a market can only absorb so many companies/cartels(whatever you wanna call them) than it already contains w/o demand for the product or service increasing.
The illegal drug trade is arguably the largest black market in the world saying that the market will shift w/o hurting the other markets is like saying no other market would be affected if the Arms Market tanked.

Dealers don't have to pay employees, taxes, overhead, production, and marketing,

If you replace 'employees' with the word 'labor', all those things must be paid for with the possible exception of marketing.

and the costs of doing business for them come from the illegality.

which adds to the cost of labor, overhead & production. (& taxes in a sense)

They're not going to any less prison if they get busted for one felony as another.

Right except for the fact that there are different sets of rules in regards to sentencing of different felonies, & a certain amount of leeway in regards to what ones sentence could be depending on the circumstances surrounding the crime .

:This makes them solid competition, and ultimately, they cannot lose because they cannot go out of business unless they go to prison.

That makes the faulty assumption that they can't continue there business in prison.

At 4/14/09 03:37 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 4/14/09 03:09 PM, Armake21truth wrote: However it will be significantly reduced by the legalization of drugs.

Unless drugs will be made available with little regulation and at cheap cost, this is debatable.

Tobacco has a very small black market & it is one of the most heavily taxed products I buy.

Yes and tell me how many people by from moonshiners instead of their local liquor store to bypass the regulations on alcohol?

Alcohol and drugs are two different things of course. Alcohol is not as addictive and has little regulation as to making it. You can buy beer at less than 1 dollar a can. Wine is also relatively cheap.
Like I said before, drugs should be legalised and made available to the masses cheap and with little regulation.

Alcohol is fairly addictive, & many hard drugs have shown no risk of dependency & alcohol also has many regulations in regards to sales & transportation.

At 4/6/09 12:18 PM, RazzVT wrote: Legalization and Regulation of "Hard Drugs" is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard today. At least the legalizing marijuana individuals have an idea on a drug that isn't going to kill you from its effects alone (unless you are referring to the effects of inhaling an irritant). It will definitely take it off the streets as people won't be as shady as they are about it. But the solution to the problem is to take it out, not making it legal. It isn't possible to do this unless you staged an all out war on drugs but legalizing it would just give easier access.

No one is saying that legalizing drugs is a solution for the drug problem, when you say the solution "is to take it out" well one problem, IT IS FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE, seriously we've been trying to do that for over thirty years & thus far it has yielded no positive result whatsoever you can't just say we are going to eliminating drugs is the solution because it is impossible to eliminate drugs. Now realizing that fact we have to options; option one continue burning our money in hopes that somehow the drug problem will magically go away & be solved, or option two, realize that drug use is a medical problem not a criminal one & stop this nonsense so we can stop wasting our money on this pointless war & make money from the taxation of drugs. If you believe the best option is to continue the same process & hope it will yield different results well then your an idiot.

At 4/6/09 08:08 PM, stafffighter wrote:
When carefully dispenced by trained medical professionals yes, a good few of them do. But others serve no purpose, making this call to legalize all drugs an insane exagerration.
Like that one guy who said we wouldn't judge a doctor for giving a man dieing a painful death some heroin. Did that particular doctor run out of other painkillers?

Actually, I just used that as an example of the varying degrees of legalization.
But I f you think a dieing man shouldn't get heroine because there are other painkillers out there you must have fallen asleep in health class( or you're completely void of compassion); heroine is the most effective painkiller known to man, nothing works better to relieve pain.

Heroine is a schedule one drug because of its highly addictive nature & high mortality rate, what of those two thing does a man who going to be dead anyway have to worry about? Why is it so important for his health or societies that he not get pain relief?

At 4/6/09 11:28 PM, afuckingname wrote:
this guy was a drug dealer, and the availability was reduced greatly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Leo nard_Pickard

need to find more of these scum

How exactly is he scum, what did he do to anyone, he sold LSD a drug not known for it's mortality rate, & other than the possibility of flashback has virtually no long term effects, so how is a man who hurt no one scum?

I wouldn't join, I think it will be easier to hoard & profiteer as a civilian.

I completely agree with bgraybr that religious arguments are pointless regardless of what the different sides are after all no religion has any actual evidence to back it up.
There is a difference between religious debate & religious discussion however & I think discussion is a very beneficial practice.

I have to say you have a very strange definition of "religion"
well it is true that the traits you stated are traits of religion, they are also the traits of a society.
Most people would define religion by beliefs in an afterlife or in a deity or in deities or a creation myth, Atheism advocates none of these however one can state that since atheists believe that there are no deities you can definitely define the concept as religious, weather or not it is a religion would depend on whether or not you make that stretch & think that belief that no deity exists alone would make it a religion.
It's a ridiculous matter of semantics, you can define it as religion or you can think it does not meet the necessary criteria to be a religion, it's stupid really.

At 4/4/09 06:51 AM, stafffighter wrote:

At 4/4/09 12:11 AM, kraor024 wrote: A

Why should we make them legal ?
Well one reason is we could stop throwing away money on the war on drugs & tax the shit out of said drugs,

And that raises the price of the consumer products. Remember that whole deal with the prescription drug companies a while back?

I'll concede that I know nothing about that, I& I need you to better explain how this would happen, & what products would be affected.

Another is it would cut down organized crime,

Orginized crime is not known for it timid reaction to competition. Do you seriously think that because there are legal drugs there still won't be illegal use? They could be cheaper, of supposed higher quality, easier to get to (more on that later) and there's still the fact that they do a lot more than just drugs.

My apologies, I didn't mean that it would end organized crime, just that it would be a major blow to it, as for selling drugs for cheaper, do you really think that they can compete with Pfizer or Phillip Morris? I'm sorry but they just can't, the profit margins would be too low to make it worth the risk. "Higher Quality" what idiot is going to trust a random person that there product is of better quality when the competition can actually give evidence that theirs is better?

or how about the fact that the drugs could be regulated thus making it more difficult for minors to get them

You ever had a grownup buy you beer? Same prinicble. Note I am compairing the two in aviaiability, not chemical effect. Otherwise I guess the kids could still go to the illegal sources, which are less likely to be safe. So in fact you're not saving anyone.

Have you ever bought an illegal substance? All you have to do is make a phone call or knock on a door, it is much harder to get someone to buy something for you than sell something to you that they are selling anyway (&they risk the kid a informing on them if they don't sell it to them)

& you can regulate them so that they will be pharmaceutical grade & be safer for people to use, or how about just the plain aurgument that the government shouldn't be able to regulate what an individual does with their body, mind, or being.

So you want the government to regulate the quality of the drugs? But isn't that the same thing as telling you what to put in your body? Infact, why even have an fda? How dare they babysit people by telling us what can and can't be in our food and medicenes. Lead poisining is the price of freedom!

Are you fucking serious, NO regulating what a drug contains does not mean telling me what to do with my body it means that should I choose to use this substance I'll know exactly what I am taking & exactly how much, Yes I believe the government should protect me from other people, NO that does not mean I think the government should protect me from myself. I just have to say that was one stupid argument, it's as if a switch just flipped in your brain & made you ignore all reason to draw a nonexistent association.

The ideal of free will existing within a societal construct is more complicated than your fucking party drugs.

I'm not talking about just party drugs & they are not MY drugs , I don't use hard drugs. Although i don't appreciate the way you stated it, I do agree; the ideal of personal freedom is a very large & complex issue, that being said I don't see your point drug use is still an issue of personal choice & lifestyle since drug use doesn't really harm anyone (individual) who isn't willing to be harmed by it.

Out of curiosity WHY would you think I would want hard drugs legalized so I could carry around marijuana? Seriously, That's like saying someone would want hand grenades to be legal so they could carry a pistol.

Well most of the people here who are advocating the harder drugs are saying they would be smart enough to stay away from the hard drugs. So what else could they be fighting for? Are they fighting for the rights of the people dumb enough to use these deadly substances? Are they advocating Darwinism at it's finest? Are they defenders of the ideal of freedom to a fault? Or are they just trying to light up and don't care if the world burns around them?

"Darwinism" do you mean "social darwinism"? Because darwinism is a made up word meant to insult people who believe a text book over a holy book. & "social darwinism" is a ridiculous idea people use to justify being amoral assholes. Either way it doesn't matter the answer doesn't change. you ask; Why would some one want to make hard drugs legal even if we don't use them?,& no the answer is not they want to use marijuana we are talking about a completely different classes of drugs here, Yes one reason is the belief of personalfreedom, but another major aurgument is that we believe that the current laws and policies put in place on this war on drugs are doing much harm to our society while yielding little to no benefit, you have heard these arguments before in this thread, The most basic & obvious reason we advocate this cause is simple; we give a shit about our society & believe this to be the best course of action.(it's not the ideal choice but we don't live in an ideal world..The reasons you gave for our reasoning suggest that you haven't accepted that for some strange reason.

I just want to point out a few thing really quick,
Not all of the illegal drugs are deadly, LSD has an incredibly low mortality rate.
The current system has in some ways impeded medical research since there is so much red tape to go through to test schedule one drugs.
The people who believe drugs should be legalized are in every aspect of our society & are a very diverse group some have never even done drugs,some are ex-addicts or current addicts some are doctors, lawyers, & businessmen, heck there are even members of law enforcementthat take this stance.
Legalization is not a black & white issue, there are varying degrees of legalization & regulation, I doubt many people think a doctor shouldn't be able to give heroine to a man dieing a painful death.
Drug consumption has in no way been significantly impacted by prohibition. Nor have drug prices significantly risen since the war on drugs began.
There are those who use hallucinogens for religious purposes making this an issue of religious freedom as well.
There is the old aurgument that the war on drugs is an actual war being waged against our own people, since drug use is most prevalent in the poor communities & within the bohemian set.

At 4/3/09 05:13 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 4/3/09 05:35 AM, kraor024 wrote:

You are partially correct when you say that the fact that hard drugs would still be considered taboo does not guarantee drug use will not skyrocket, but there is one thing that will prevent drug use from skyrocketing; common sense, the fact that most people don't do hard drugs has nothing to do with the fact that it is illegal, people don't use hard drugs because they are smart enough to know how dangerous they are, people say that making it legal will increase supply & thus use, but truth be told for some of these drugs the supply currently exceeds the demand.

So, why should we make this legal then? Is it to make things easier for the people who aren't smart enough to avoid these things? Or is it a ridiculous blanket statment to make it seem like your values are broader than not wanting to be busted for weed in your pocket?

Why should we make them legal ?
Well one reason is we could stop throwing away money on the war on drugs & tax the shit out of said drugs, Another is it would cut down organized crime, or how about the fact that the drugs could be regulated thus making it more difficult for minors to get them & you can regulate them so that they will be pharmaceutical grade & be safer for people to use, or how about just the plain aurgument that the government shouldn't be able to regulate what an individual does with their body, mind, or being.

Out of curiosity WHY would you think I would want hard drugs legalized so I could carry around marijuana? Seriously, That's like saying someone would want hand grenades to be legal so they could carry a pistol.

At 4/2/09 09:51 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 4/2/09 09:18 PM, killa-teddy wrote:

Though you are right in saying that my main priority is in the legalization of cannabis, I do still fully think that the current laws for hard drug users is doing far more harm than good. One might say that hard drug use makes others more violent, but in a society were these are legal and the taboos are gone, more responsible use will arise. I can't give any direct evidence of this, I can only campare it to the prohibition of alcohol. Which as I am sure you can see was an utter failure, only through the 21st ammendment did any of the negative effects of alcohol disappeared

Well here's the thing. Are you comparing alcohal to pot or to hard drugs? Those are two vastly different cases.
Also, people here have been saying that the number of users won't sky rocket preciesly because the taboo will remain. It can't happen boths ways.

You are partially correct when you say that the fact that hard drugs would still be considered taboo does not guarantee drug use will not skyrocket, but there is one thing that will prevent drug use from skyrocketing; common sense, the fact that most people don't do hard drugs has nothing to do with the fact that it is illegal, people don't use hard drugs because they are smart enough to know how dangerous they are, people say that making it legal will increase supply & thus use, but truth be told for some of these drugs the supply currently exceeds the demand.

Let me put it this way I live in a city with a huge meth problem, I currently know two people who make meth & at least seven that use it, if I wanted to do meth I could probably have it delivered within an hour that being said I have never done meth but I could get it easily almost as easy as I could order a pizza. The reason don't use meth has nothing to do with it being hard to get or that it is illegal, but that I am capable ( on occasion) of making an intelligent decision.

I have a question, Does anyone who is suggesting that drug use would increase if drugs became legal have any evidence to suggest so?
I'm just asking this because alcohol consumption actually increased during alcohol prohibition & dropped severely after alcohol prohibition was repealed & drug use for all of the drugs I've researched (marijuana, cocaine,methamphetamine,& heroine) has actually increased since the war on drugs began, Seriously is there any data to suggest that drug use would increase if prohibition was dropped?

And I mean other than the "logically" if drugs were easier to get that means more people would be dumb enough to do them aurgument, that aurgument doesn't hold much weight with me since (you can believe me)most illegal drugs are incredibly easy to get in all honestly I could have gotten meth easier than I could get cigarettes when I was thirteen so I don't see how that aurgument is valid.

Da Vinci did do a few things scientific he studied flight & he mapped out(?) the human body although it is true he never invented anything(except paint by numbers)

At 2/10/09 03:03 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 2/9/09 11:31 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 2/9/09 04:09 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: take out evolution since it is unreliable and unproven,

;;;;;;;
Shaggy , evolution has been proven.

I don't believe you, and you're not making yourself clear on what evolution you think has been proven.
The part of evolution called "natural selection" has been proven wrong because fundamental changes within an animal cannot happen unless the information er potential for it is already there.

What do you mean "information" ? To my knowledge most species contain no information as they have no memory?

At 2/9/09 03:59 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 2/8/09 10:32 PM, kraor024 wrote:

At 2/8/09 07:13 PM, Achilles2 wrote: Don't forget that part of the First Amendment that says "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Atheists seem to forget that part, conveniently.

Actually no they usually don't at least no more than certain theists forget the other part.

You completely dodged the point I was making. Just because someone does something worse doesn't mean that you're wrong is a right.

I didn't dodge it, you didn't state that one wrong is not lesser you said atheists forget you have the right to religion & most atheists don't care if you are religious, they just don't want you to shove your religion down peoples throats.

At 2/8/09 07:13 PM, Achilles2 wrote: Don't forget that part of the First Amendment that says "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Atheists seem to forget that part, conveniently.

Actually no they usually don't at least no more than certain theists forget the other part.

I disagree, The media is biased but it is biased on both sides some networks are conservative & some are liberal, the media now is just a product to be packaged & sold like everything else, some newspapers & tv stations choose to market toward conservatives & some towards liberals, the sad thing is that a long time ago when there were only three tv station in the country the tv news attempted to be non biased, but that era is gone now.

At 2/8/09 01:26 PM, superperson101 wrote: If you remove all things christian-related, including, but not limited to: praying, crosses etc. Then that means that all things related to religion should be removed. That means no no getting on the floor and praying to allah, only the theory of evolution, no statues, no turbans, no bibles (satanic, christian, book of morman), etc. Also, did you hear about the judge that said national atheist day is April 1st?! I think that is funny as hell.

Crosses are banned from being put on school grounds because it would mean that that school supports Christianity Which for a public school is illegal. As id forced prayer, but if you want to wear a cross & pray in school that is perfectly okay it is illegal to ban such practices in schools as well for that would be a government body condemning religion which is also illegal.

I think that judge is a moron he insulted 1/5 of this countries population & for a public official that is a stupid move.

At 2/8/09 04:35 AM, AngelaGuch wrote: Lets try not to mix alcohol and stupidity...

Dude
Intelligence + Alcohol = stupidity.

Genetic modification is awesome with it we can grow hardier crops with higher yields, Not the mention the nifty new products it can make like biosteel.

When it comes to human genetic modification I think that it could help fight diseases & genetic defects, although at the present time this could only theoretically be done using embryos & in vitro fertilization .
People get the idea human modification means that someone will create a "super race" When we are at least a century away from being able to understand genetics well enough to do anything close to that.

At 1/8/09 03:56 AM, Demosthenez wrote: The cop must have thought it was his tazer or he is insane. That is straight up execution style. I COULD see how he could think it was a taze (lot of noise and shit happening at the time, you dont think to clearly) but it is still inexcusable. I sincerly hope it was some accident.

Just have to wait for more info.

I don't see how someone could mistake their sidearm for a tazer all the tazers I've handled are significantly lighter than most firearms. I don't know what kind of tazers they use there but I have a hard time believing that a cop, someone who has to rely on their tazer & gun could confuse the two.

I could see it being accidental if he drew the weapon and his finger somehow slipped but I kinda doubt that is the case.

Your right though we'll just have to wait for more info.

I've done a littl e research & it looks like you might be right there is (some) research that shows that circumcision may be a prophylactic for HPV (& only low risk HPV actually produces genital warts) but considering the odds of getting cancer or visible symptoms & the fact that most of the time a strain of HPV will be eliminated by the bodies immune system within a few years & that the results of said studies are still questionable (all the studies I read had been published in the last year) it is in my untrained opinion that is not a significant reason to have a child circumcised.

this is all I came up with
Thunder - Move On

At 1/9/09 04:44 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 1/9/09 04:32 AM, SonOfCeno wrote: I have a couple of questions to all of those in favor of infant circumcisions:

1: If it is for religious reasons, shouldn't the child have the ability to make the decision for himself? If he was a true believer of his faith, and circumcision was a requirement, wouldn't he do it without objection on his own?

Like baptism? Oh... right.

Some sects don't practice "juvenile baptism" in these sects you typically have to be at least 13 to be baptized.

2: If it is for clinical reasons (stopping of future infections arguement), shouldn't the operation be performed after the infection is treated, similar to the case of a tonsilectomy? We aren't talking about crippling infections that can kill or destroy genitalia in a matter of days. Not to mention it's something that can be prevented with minimal hygiene practices.

The STD's that foreskins increase the chance of (which condoms eliminate difference between circumcisions ans non circumcisions) are the kind like herpes and HPV that don't really go away.

There are some infections men can rarely get if they still have their foreskin that are not sexually transmitted however these can be prevented with simple hygiene & cured with antibiotics.
Also there is little evidence that circumcision prevents the spread of HIV.
And how would circumcision prevent HPV? Seriously How is that even possible?

I am surprised no one has mentioned the real reason circumcision continues,

The reason it became fashionable in the U.S. is because of "moralists" who thought that it would prevent infants & children from touching themselves, the reason it continues is simple no one wants to answer this question
"Dad , why does my penis look different than yours?".

There seriously is no reason to preform a circumcision other than tradition.

At 1/9/09 04:26 AM, Bolo wrote:

Whereas Agnosticism is a straight-up unknowingness (a euphemism, to be frank, for uncaringness),

Not "uncaringness" as you put it but merely the simple fact that you can not know if god(s) exist there are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, but if you admit you don't know you are an agnostic regardless if you believe, disbelieve, or remain neutral. So many agnostics due care

From neither Anti-Theists, Nor Religious folks could you entice such an changeable response, based on provable reality, as both of these organized groups rely completely on irrational, unchanging, dogmatic and unproven belief in their respective dichotomous philosophies.

Much of that statement could apply to many atheists I've met over the years.

At 12/26/08 10:20 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/26/08 10:06 PM, kraor024 wrote: And When did you figure this out?
Of course the US actions have created terrorists & of course caused more terrorists groups to grow in numbers.

Nevermind the fact that it was Europe who ravaged these middle eastern lands after WWI and left them in such a desolate state after WWII, leading to the rise of several of these nutjobs, military dictators, and terrorist groups.

I'll take you're word on that I am not a history buff, either way the US has committed actions that have created terrorists, many other countries have as well, all I was saying is that there is nothing that really can be done about it.

At 12/26/08 10:26 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 12/26/08 10:11 PM, kraor024 wrote: ........................................

.....

Are you serious? By the eighth time she probably had it memorized. Where I live if you fail once they require you to get glasses/contacts/laser eye surgery before you can qualify for a license.

I'm sorry she passed on her eighth time but took it seven times before that. for all I know that is illegal here and they just felt sorry for her and let her keep going.

They really will only let you take it once wow, even I think that you should be given two tries some people have difficulty seeing that close, I don't know how they do it anywhere else but here they use the things that are attached to the counter and you are looking at a chart that is only a maybe 20" away at max through the lenses on the device it can be difficult not to go cross eyed especially if you are also wearing glasses.

One problem with licensing the elderly to drive I have noticed is that they really are not to strict on the qualifiers, when I went to get my ID on my 21st Bday a little old lady was in front of me she took the vision test 8 times before she finally past, 2 maybe 3 times I could understand but if you fail the Vision test 8 times before you pass you should not be driving home.

And When did you figure this out?
Of course the US actions have created terrorists & of course caused more terrorists groups to grow in numbers.
The bottom line is that there really isn't much that can be done we have to occupy other countries, we have to have military bases where certain people don't want them, and we have to train people in terrorists tactics and play them against our enemies, Sure we could stop doing all that but then the political strength the US has would drop severely.

The only thing it sounds like you can do is move out so your own property does not get stolen & hope your mom comes to her senses & kicks his ass out, Or you can try and send your brother to rehab for pot I know rehab for pot is silly but it may give him a chance to work on some of his issues which if he is stealing from family he probably has a few, unless he is just a greedy asshole.

By the way when you say he'll break up weed in front of company do you mean like important company, people who would actually care if he was breaking up weed? Because Most company I have & my family had when I lived with them really would not care.

NG-Unit,SmilezRoyale, Sajberhippienhttp, Elfer, Achilles2, Please stay on topic this is not a LEGALIZATION thread this is a REGULATION THREAD please do not debate the merits drug legalization, do not state that any drug should be illegal in this thread if you want to state that somewhere use the good old search bar and you'll find dozens of threads you can do that in, Also do not say X won't be legalized this is a hypothetical it is a simple question.
WHAT WOULD BE A WORKABLE SOLUTION FOR REGULATION???

At 12/24/08 02:25 PM, Another-User wrote:

At 12/24/08 07:11 AM, kraor024 wrote:

......

Looks like someone doesn't understand basic odds. You see, the odds of you geting pregnant your 1st time is the same as the odds of getting pregnant the 3.8 x 10^45 time. Seriously, learn some fucking maths.

seriously how stupid are you to not be able to figure that one out.

Seriously, how stupid are you to not understand how the likelyhood for something to happen at any given time is completely seperate from what happened before?

How stupid are you that the odds of an event happening increase with the more you have sex if you honestly don't believe me the zeroth time you have sex the odds are impossible , yes the fist time the odds are the same as the X time but you are talking about a single event not when these events are compiled together so yes the more you have sex the more likely you are to get pregnant don't try and say I don't know math because you want to quote mine and take something in completely different than it was meant (ASSHOLE)