>> ^TheSofaKing:
"it's a real good idea to hide your stash in hard to find places"
Wow...just wow. This guy also doesn't appear to know much about narcotic detecting dogs.


Well, umm, he kind of worked with them on a daily basis for several years.

So if I'm anti-drugs, that means I automatically abuse prescription narcotics?

According of many researchers Alcohol and Drug addiction is simply defined as a compulsive need for an intoxicating liquid that is obtained from fermented grain or fruit. These liquids include beer, wine, and other hard liquors. it says like every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism. and Alcohol addiction may also inflame the mouth, esophagus, and stomach, and could cause cancer in these areas, especially in drinkers who also smoke. Have a desire to stop the Alcohol and Drug addiction. You must have a serious desire to stop from being an alcoholic.

__________________
Marvin


This is a comprehensive addiction portal focusing on topics of alcohol and drug abuse. http://www.alcoholaddiction.org.

Ok people.... don't get all in a fit. The US border patrol isn't exactly going to souther Illinois and setting these check points up. Having lived in El Paso Texas for a couple of years I've been through these checkpoints numorous times. This point isn't set up at a point of entry into the country. They are set up on major highways leaving areas (El Paso) that have points of entry and / huge populations of Mexicans(I'm not racist, so don't even say it retards.. Mexicans come from Mexico) To ensure that no on is bring illegal immigrants into the country as well as making sure people who are not citizens don't venture to far wit out someone knowing about it for accountability reasons.

However, judging by the tailor, it looks as though this is a makeshift checkpoint, So I'm guessing that they got word of someone smuggeling immigrants through that area so they set that point up to try and catch them. Border Patrol agents also seize millions of dollars worth of narcotic every year.

Point is, this guy is not a douche bag. He wanted an answer to his question, he could have at least answered one of hers. Had he said yes, she probably would have sent him on his way. Every time I've driven through one, they ask, i say yes, and then i drive off.

FUCK YOU MR. Web-cam-on-the-dash-douche. Stop TRYING to start and incident and let those people do their jobs. I know I'm sick of paying for illegal immigrants to sap of my government while offering nothing back into the system.

>> ^EDD:
So from my experience, spirituality in the more developed world nowadays is just as bad as religion, if not worse (talking in general here, not specific cases). Nutshell: spirituality-just as bad as religious dogma
By the way, I have, in fact, never tried any narcotic substances apart from the ones in Absinthe. Anyway, the experiences this path provides aren't ones I'd ever suggest to anyone, however mesmerizing they might be.


I'm no New Age fan, either. That's a full-blown religion in its own right, with dogmatic aspects to it. My mom is into New Age stuff, and my dad was somethings of a Dawkins-ish atheist.

I feel like I split the difference. I guess agnostic is probably the right term for me. I don't generally subscribe to any given religion, but I try to be respectful of those who do. I tend to think that if I wasn't such a cynical person, I might easily wind up being religious.

As for my mention of drugs, I definitely want to clarify that I'm not recommending people do drugs, and not trying to conflate drugs and religion as being somehow equivalent. They're dangerous, and watching some of the spacier videos on the 'sift can evoke the same sort of feeling. And the 'sift is still legal in all 50 states!

I noticed my comment before got downvoted -- I'm a bit surprised at that, but I guess this is a touchy subject, and I did just kinda rattle that out while I was sleep-addled. If I offended anyone with what I said, I apologize.

I'd like to paint the rosy picture with you, NetRunner, it's just that from all the utter shit I've experienced dealing with (helping, actually) mostly young females obsessed with New age crap, I can't in good conscience agree with you. Really, the stuff I've seen/heard/fought with could fill volumes of blogs. It usually starts with leaving the traditional religion, maybe moving towards an eastern one and then all the nonsense about "demons" and "angels", and "chakras", and "reiki" (<-complete, utter bollocks if you ask me) comes in.
So from my experience, spirituality in the more developed world nowadays is just as bad as religion, if not worse (talking in general here, not specific cases). Nutshell: spirituality-just as bad as religious dogma

By the way, I have, in fact, never tried any narcotic substances apart from the ones in Absinthe. Anyway, the experiences this path provides aren't ones I'd ever suggest to anyone, however mesmerizing they might be.

I, for one, welcome narcotics into our drinking water and I hope to see an increase.

The idiocy contained in the comments so far is really quite staggering. Do you people really think that the officer in question is upset because he has some irrational fear of 'getting high', or that he thinks he could have died of a weed overdose?

Police officers depend on their judgment and ability to think quickly. During the course of one shift, their lives, their fellow officers lives and the lives of the citizens they protect could depend on them being at the top of their game... not unknowingly under the influence of a narcotic.

Everyone here who thinks no 'serious harm' could have resulted from the actions of these two douche bags, and that no serious punishment was called for should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

"it's a real good idea to hide your stash in hard to find places"

Wow...just wow. This guy also doesn't appear to know much about narcotic detecting dogs.

Every large accident study shows that stoned drivers are better drivers than sober drivers. Cannabis is not a narcotic it is a stimulant.

Also drug laws and their severity have no effect on usage. Usage from country to country vary only with cultural norms the laws have no measurable effect. Your car crash scenario is more likely to happen in a country with harsh drug laws since the user would have more reason to run from the cops.

-Karl

How do you know they're putting your life in danger? You cannot just assume someone is putting your life in danger because they have narcotics in their car. That's just silly. As an aside, my point wasn't for bolstering anarchy, it was to point out how critical we should be of making laws from fear instead of reason.

Wow. Where to begin?

Your comparison to a policeman shooting an unarmed suspect is flawed, because cocaine and other illegal narcotics happen to kill an enormous amount of people, directly and indirectly. More so, in fact, than armed fleeing criminals, by a significant factor.

This leads into your argument about shooting down a defenseless plane. No, they could NOT have followed them until it landed. By the time it landed, it would have been outside of their jurisdiction, meaning the criminals on the plane would have gotten away scot free. But hey, how could you know, you're just tossing out comments on the interbutts, nobody's actually going to call you on your incorrect assumptions of international interdiction procedures, right?

And as for "absolutely no threat"....see:
US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Applied Studies. Results from the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: national findings. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2006.

Over 15,000 people will die this year in the United States alone from narcotics overdoses. Just because those people on the plane weren't putting a gun to Americans' heads and pulling the trigger doesn't mean they weren't contributing in a very real way to the deaths of thousands.

And don't tell me what I assume about people on that plane. Those people on the plane were very likely middle-level runners, with slightly-above average income for their country because, as you suggested, it was the best job they could get. That does not, however, mean that they could not have gotten other, lower-paying-but-non-criminal jobs, especially the pilot. That also does not mean that they did not have a very good idea of the effects their successful run would have on other faceless people. That also does not mean they did not have fair warning, or have full knowledge of the possible retribution for their actions. The terms of engagement have been well-declared, documented, and acknowledged for a long time. They knew what they were getting into when they agreed to run drugs for a cartel. Hell, they were warned repeatedly by the military jets, yet they chose to ignore those warnings and continue anyway. Or did you miss that?

As for your bit about Bush, way to make a baseless accusation - I guess anybody who disagrees with you has to be evil incarnate, just like Dubya? I was for Gore the first time around, and campaigned for Dean and later Kerry during the 2004s. So the hell with your throwaway lines, if you're so quick to judge that I'm the kind of person who votes for Bush, you're the kind of divisive, whiny airhead that lost us the elections.

In reply to your comment:
“

In reply to your comment:
“ Sl666's comment was just pure idiocy, and I'm not in the habit of suffering idiots.”

Thing is rembar, i think you are the idiot - sorry for the delayed reply,

I would prefer none of them had to die, but i cannot sanction actions to shoot down a defenceless plane.. they could have just followed it until it landed and arrested them? they were absoloutely no threat.

Would you say the same if a policeman shot someone who was running away from them? no weapon?

You assume that everyone on that plane was some evil Columbian drug lord, that probably isn't the case, it was probably flown and crewed by people that work for a drug lord because it was the best job they could get.

Defend my country, no worries, defend my family, no worries, shoot down a civilian plane? f**k no, thats an act of terrorism.

Its people like you that voted for bush.”

A very nice comment thread. Enjoyed the 'recreational pharmacy' comment, especially with the note that purchasers be required to read (or watch) and understand the serious dangers their purchasing decisioned may bring to them.

A relative described their addiction (to illegal narcotics) to me once. It took a good friend moving in to help him change his habits and seek help, and it wasn't through lecturing or berating; simply seeing how a friend lived a contrastingly busy and successful life made my relative realize how he was wasting his own talents. He is now in his early-50's, retired, and owns three homes around the world. I often credit him with my serious aversion to hard drugs. I also sometimes wonder, what if he were imprisoned all those years ago?

Boys, "Alcohol is a violent narcotic."

Golly mister, you're right, we'll smoke REEFER from now on. Thanks!

raven would like 'Moonchild' I'm a little more partial to his other book 'Diary of a Drug Fiend' which was one of the first honest portrayals of hard narcotic use. And despite his anti-literary approach to writing the ending is quite a revelation that will catch the reader off guard. For the depths of artistic depravity, there is his collection of poems 'Clouds Without Water' which I was fortunate (or cursed) enough to find a printing of from the 1950s at a used bookstore for a dollar-fifty, can never read more than one page at a time though.

Great post gwaan!