RobertNashville

I see your point but that just raises other problems doesn't it? Isn't that fact that Romney isn't "Conservative/libertarian" enough exactly why so many "conservatives" have said they don't like Romney?

Personally, I reject the whole notion of a "hate crime" since, in my opinion, it's 100% politically motivated and, at least for the most part, has been applied only when a caucasian commits a crime against a negro or some other minority. This crime was mostly just a thug being a thug and this teacher being an easy target. But, if "hate crime" laws was administered fairly, it would probably qualify as a hate crime.

Actually, a "human powered" vehicle could be very, very useful...if one is in shape enough to use it. I used to bicycle 200-300 miles per week and if you do that kind if cycling then using something like you suggest could be a realistic alternative...you might be surprised at how much you can carry and how far you could go in a day. The only issue I see would be that you would need relatively clear roads to get very far.

At least in my opinion, I think the best bug-out vehicle is going to need to be 4 wheel drive with plenty of room to carry you (and your family and pets) and all the supplies you can cram in (food, camping equip, spare fuel, etc.). That said, some sort of SUV and/or pick-up (maybe with a cap) and as reliable as your budget can afford. Since I am concerned about both EMP and overall ease of maintenance, I'm going to say a "pre-compurterized" and pre-fuel injected vehicle along with some replacements parts for they most likely problem areas (hoses, belts, points, plugs, water pump, alternator, etc.). Just my $0.02

There is no reason why we couldn't get together again. I might suggest, however, that we try to meet at the new Nashville Armory...they may even let us use a classroom just to meet/talk if they don't already have it booked for something.

If memory serves, a lot of people thought Reagan would stumble and in fact, he did in the first debate. But... He walked away with it in the following debates. Whether Mit can pull it off or not I don't know but given where both our economy and our foreign relations stand, Obama doesn't have much to talk about that's positive other then "I'm the first black president and I need more time".

Is anyone but me confused about how this guy's pickup truck had a wreck bad enough for the air bags to deploy yet he just walks away leaving fake documents and weapons in the vehicle AND apparently unaware that there might be an investigation going on??? Maybe I'm just missing something but none of this actually adds up to me.

Good sources although I'm not sure if they prove the original assertion that alcohol presents a greater risk of "harm" to others than does marijuana - I'm not and as far as I know, no one is saying that those who misuse alcohol...drink to drunkenness, etc., can't or don't cause harm to others; clearly they do. However, I think it equally clear that misuse of either carries a risk of harm to others. But I'm not sure I see support for the assertion that alcohol presents a "greater risk of harm". I would suggest that if your mind is screwed up because you are using drugs...any drugs (legal, illegal, prescription, OTC, etc., etc.)...you present a risk of harm to both yourself and to others...what "drug" is involved is immaterial and to claim that alcohol carries a greater risk of harm than pot is about as useful as arguing how many grains of sand is in the ocean. If nothing else, the data seems to show that, strictly looking a the "high" from alcohol and the "high" from pot, they two are relatively equal in effect. For me the difference between the two is pretty easy to quantify. Other than those who claim that marijuana has medicinal uses (a claim that is at best disputed by many physicians); the only significant use for pot is to get high. While getting "high" is one use of alcohol, people use alcohol for a variety of reasons - getting "high" isn't even the primary reason. Some here clearly have an irrational fear and loathing of alcohol. That's okay; but that's a lousy basis on which to propose changes to public policy. Most people use alcohol responsibly and cause no harm to anyone, including themselves....I'm sure that's generally true of most pot users as well but I see now significant reason to legalize pot nor to make alcohol illegal. With that, I'm done...on to, hopefully, something more useful to discuss.

As to the risk of harm to others because of the abuse of alcohol being greater than the risk of harm to others because of abuse of marijuana, I am not and I have not disputed the fact that alcohol abuse causes a lot of problems and harm to others. What I asked you to substantiate was your assertion that the risk of harm to others because of the abuse of alcohol is greater than the risk of harm to others because of the abuse of smoking pot. Citing data about alcohol abuse and harm to others Is only half of that equation. Unless you can document the other half your assertion is meaningless.

Drinking to be social and drinking for the effect of the alcohol are two separate things Which is why the two sources I cited list them separately. They are not equal. They are not interchangeable. They are not the same things. Drinking alcohol for the effect of the alcohol is third and it's third behind Drinking for the taste.

...

Obviously, you are reading different sources than I quoted.Both sources I quoted list taste as the number two reason for drinking alcohol...drinking for the effect is third. Now, I don't know where you went to school but where I went to school I was taught that a second-place reason is higher than a third place reason. Your assertion that people who drink to excess are at a bigger risk to harm others is laughable... please feel free to share the data you must have that compares and contrasts the potential risk of alcohol abuse and harm to others versus the potential risk of pot abuse and risk of harm to others. However, once again, I suspect your wild statement is just a reflection of your personal hatred for alcohol with no real basis in fact.

In this case, "common sense" is wrong. I've also seen little common sense in any of the arguments you've presented. The one real consistency you've shown in this thread is what appears to be your personal hatred of alcohol, showing little or no ability to acknowledge that the vast majority of people who use alcohol do so responsibly and without any negative effects at all...it is the onderwhelming minority of people who actually experience the harmful effects of alcohol abusers/alcoholics. Do some people drink for the effect? Of course they do and I never said otherwise. Is the effect of alcohol the number one reason why people drink? No; except, perhaps for those who are or are on their way to be part of the minority who abuse alcohol but for most people it is not the primary reason people drink alcohol.

There you go again...making nearly all-encompassing, unsupported assertions.So why do most people drink alcoholic beverages? While you are answering that, please provide some data (preferably empirical data based on research) that supports your assertion.

Then I'd say you are pretty damn lucky and a good thing you didn't continue using it.

How it tastes most certainly does matter because it goes to the heart of both how and why alcohol is used by most people compared how and why illegal drugs are used by most of those who use them. You can chose to not see the difference between the two but the differences are there nonetheless. It would be absurd were anyone arguing that position fervently but no one is. I’m pointing out differences between how and why most people use alcohol (over half the population of the U.S. and some 2 billion people worldwide) vs. how/why most illegal drugs are used. I’ve said more than once in this thread that while I probably wouldn’t propose such a change I can see how making all “illegal†drugs “legal†is in keeping with the concepts of individual liberty, freedom and responsibility; I am not sure that doing so is a good idea nor do I really believe that doing so would reduce gang related crime (which is how this dead horse beating got started) but I’d probably go along with it. As with many if not most substances in life (you can actually kill yourself if you drink too much water in too short a period of time). Of course, alcohol is dangerous if it is misused/abused but unless I missed it no one has said otherwise. Really? I may be misinformed but I’ve not seen reliable evidence to show that there are very many casual, responsible users of heroin or of cocaine or of crack or of meth or of most any other illegal drug...I would suggest that's why most of the illegal drugs are illegal. Maybe you've seen evidence I haven't or maybe you know some people who use such drugs “responsibility†but as I said, I've not see that assertion supported with real evidence and it certainly hasn’t been my personal experience.

While that is a true statement; consider that, although tastes differ between people, most people would agree that alcohol in most of its forms tastes good...how many people shoot heroin or snort coke because it tastes good? The alcohol I drink complements certain meals and certain fine cigars I smoke...I don't think I could ever say the same about crack or meth. Clearly, some (and it is just some) people have problems with alcohol but the overwhelming majority of those who use alcohol use is responsibly so why shouldn't it be portrayed as desirable and acceptable? Those of us who enjoy firearms portray firearm ownership and use as fun and desirable and acceptable (as well as a God given right) - should we not do that because of the small percentage of gun owners who misuse their weapons?

Trying to have a conversation with you is like herding cats and almost as pointless. So the “some drug users†you accused of “celebrating their drugs and looking down on other drug users†in post #226 is now “society†and "country music stations"??? Do I have a correct understanding of your statement now or do you want to change it again? ROTFLMAO I'm not a CW fan but I listen to country music stations now and then and I watch football games now and then too but I don't see how either "celebrates" alcohol - can you be a bit more specific about how that happens?

I guess some people are just never happy with how something "is" and has to customize; even to the point of being ridiculous...I see it in the sports car community all the time. I'm all for doing things that truly make something better but there is a point that it becomes just stupid...I've seen guys spent $60K in customization on a $30 car to enhance its performance when they are left with something that "might' perform as well as a base Corvette after spending more on the car than a ZO6 would have cost them, etc. If I want a $1,200 Glock I'll go buy a Sig or Dan Wesson 1911.

Gee...I don't know...I suppose it could be your statement that I put in QUOTATION MARKS???

More BS...you keep asserting garbage like "some drug users have no problem celebrating their drugs and looking down on other drug users" which is just an assertion on your part to support a weak argument. Who, precisely is "celebrating their drug use" and who, precisely is "looking down on other drug users"? Do you mean people here? If so, who or are these just the "them/they" everybody talks about? ROTFLMAO.You obviously have a burr up your backside about alcohol and that burr is apparently causing you to make unsupportable statements (or at the very least, statements that you are either unwilling or unable to support).

Yeah...that's probably true although I don't know we have any way to prove it do we?Whether we can or can't prove it that is one of the reasons why I think, at least in primary elections for Federal offices, the primary should be open only to that party...you shouldn't be able to switch back and forth just so you can screw up the party you are actually opposed to!

You are absolutely correct, your statement is true once you provide some additional facts (which you did not provide in your original post). Growing marijuana is a serious felony and just because your hometown acquaintances say it's for personal use the law doesn't see it that way.For the record, you made it sound, either purposely to enhance your point or out of ignorance, that there were people sitting in jail just because they had a tiny bit of marijuana on them...that's what I called BS on because that assertion was BS and is BS. Here is a clue for your home town acquaintances (and this is a difficult concept for some folks to grasp so you may have to tell them multiple times before they get it) - don't do illegal stuff, especially serious illegal stuff, and you won't have to sit in jail! If you are going to do illegal stuff then the ramifications for that choice is 100% on them...if they don't like the laws then operate within the system to get the laws changed; in the meantime, I'm not going to shed one tear for someone stupid enough to grow the stuff knowing the possible consequences.

I call Bovine Scatology on that...pray tall me, who, specifically, is "...sitting in jail right now who's only crime was trying to get weed"? Most states, including Tennessee, makes simple possession a misdemeanor and that's been true for a long time. Specifically... Any adults sitting in jail right now because of trying to get weed were either in possession of a ####load of it or there were other, serious, crimes in play at the same time. And for future reference, you'll almost never bring anyone over to your position by making wildly untrue, ridiculous statements. I know...I've tried it...it doesn't work.

I guess I'm trying to figure out what the point of the story is...the court clerk/system screwed up..messed up his HCP and the citizen has to jump through hoops to get the mess they caused straightened out. I'd say that's pretty much the norm. I just can't wait to get that government health care we all have to have.