>> ^Wingoguy:
Great! Except for the bad grammar in the title.


I blame substance abuse! Sorry about that, it's fixed now

Show me that the good outweighs the bad and I'll gladly change my stance.

Do you have any facts to back up your statements? I do.

A 2006 study called Monitoring Their Future found that four percent of eighth graders and seven percent of twelfth graders had tried cough medicines to get high.

Contrast that with thirty-two percent of 12th graders admitting to regular marijuana use and thirty pecent admitting to having been "drunk" at least once in the past 30 days.
http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pressreleases/06drugpr.pdf

Sure, cough syrup abuse is a problem, but I think we can agree that cough syrup serves a valuable purpose and is not one of the larger problems when it comes to substance abuse. I had a cold last week so I can say with added emphasis: Thanks goodness for nyquil!

Everything should be legal and pricy and taxy (oh yeah Obama will tax your drugs crazy). So pot consumers just think about it when the high will be finally gone.

The moral issues surrounding substance abuse is only valid when it comes to drugs harming anyone else besides the one consuming them.

Why should anyone care if you're looking for good flavours, good sensations, a pitiful slow suicide, or a dumb social status, or whatever, if not for the fact that the side effect may be harming others while doing so?
That's right, no one should.
Instead of practicing prohibition, laws should be remarkingly severe in the punition of this kind of harm.
You killed someone while drunk-driving, you're baby-sitting and the kid dies during bath time because you weren't aware? You'd know what's coming - death.
Your smoke got into the lungs of a nearby citizen? Prepare to be shocked randomly by strangers during the day. Your vodka-fueled vomit got into the pants and shoes of someone else? Expect big smelly piles of sht mixed with semen and bits of dead skin being thrown at you whenever you suspect it may happen. And so on.

Join me in a healthy orgy with tested-only sexy people?

I've seen attorneys wearing skirts that showed more skin then the shorts that have been described.

It sounds like she's got a substance abuse problem, so it's entirely possible that her mind is a bit addled and she did truly forget that she had been commanded to dress in a more prudish manner.

I still don't think she meant any disrespect, and I get the impression that had she gone in wearing anything other than a business suit/dress, the bitch on the bench would have tossed her in the pokey.

So what have we learned here?
- You are god's puppet, but at least you'll get to join him in some painfully obvious and horrific interpretive dance.
- The devil is a hispanic man and though he looks nice- make no mistake- he will seduce you with his native dance.
- Black people will then tease you and subsequently try to lure you into lesbianism (not quite clear which I'm supposed to be afraid of) while loose white women will push you into substance abuse.
-Shadowy figures who apparently are not subject to tight gun control will then help you to self mutilate or commit suicide.
-You can fight your way back to God, considering he's still pulling your strings, but you will lose your shirt.

Thank you for showing me the obvious and poorly acted light.
TO THE CHURCH!

>> ^NetRunner:
blankfist, it seems you're almost a progressive. We just need to get you to love trains, children, farm animals, and veterans as much as you love drug addicts.


Haha, I just read that. You act as if I'm some hardboiled neocon. I am progressive, just not left wing. I care very deeply about civil liberties and equality. I don't believe the government should punish anyone for substance abuse, therefore prop 5 makes sense. I am against foolishly spending money. I get taxed heavily in California and especially so because I have my own LLC for the film. The harder I work, the more I pay.

The props for trains and children hospitals are a waste of money. And, get that picture of the sickly bald child out of your head, NetRunner. Lil' Timmy is still going to get his treatment, I promise you. I do think I will vote yes on prop 12.

Since when has substance abuse been grounds for dismissal at Fox? I thought it was job requirement.

OK, being an Australian I again, am distanced from all this, but the more I see, the more I like what I see of Obama, and what he says here about removing the influence of the huge lobbies and HMOs etc. IS what is needed in the States. Oh, man I hope he gets in now, I think he really, hopefully has what it takes.

And Quantummushroom... why say that Clinton was a felon (which he is IS NOT), while ignoring that your f*cking poster child in Bush, the man who you voted in with no understanding of how amazingly un credentialed he was for office... has a past of substance abuse, both legal and illegal, and has a DUI on his record.

Come on, stop flinging shit when the ones you so dearly love with your humongously right wing mind are already mired deeply in it.

Source: MARK WASHBURN, TV/RADIO WRITER
Mark Mathis - whose unpredictable, improvisational weather forecasts on Charlotte's Fox affiliate amused some viewers and infuriated others over the last two years was fired this week by WCCB-TV, two weeks after checking into rehabilitation for alcohol and substance abuse problems. "They called me here at the hospital and basically said they're `terminating your employment with Fox,' " said Mathis, 38, in a telephone interview

Published on November 19, 2004, Page 1B, Charlotte Observer, The (NC)

... maybe worth mentioning that substance abuse is a disease... ( http://www.medicinenet.com/alcohol_abuse_and_alcoholism/article.htm )

I watched an interview with the awesome James Taylor last night in which he talked about how he lost 20 years to substance abuse. It can seem easy from our vantage point to NOT do something like get blitz before performing an MJ song on TV, but as an alcoholic her body and mind truly see it as a necessity... the getting blitz part, that-is.

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.”

Andy Dick is an aptly named guy, with a serious substance abuse problem. He is pathetic.