PDA

View Full Version : Change We Will GET



Raymond Little
02-12-2009, 09:01 PM
Stopped at the local GetITANDGO for gas and milk tonight.
The clerk told me that starting in April cigarettes will increase
in price from $4.00 per pack to $6.00. I asked him if ObomoS
picture would be printed on the Kool Filter KINGS. Na, most
of the poor SOB'S that voted for him will believe it's the
Conservative Devil that caused them smokes to increase in
price. RIGHT??????????????


Stockin Up Now

Franco
02-12-2009, 09:37 PM
Well heck, we getting ready to give everybody money so they can afford $6. a pack!

Raymond Little
02-12-2009, 09:57 PM
Actually Franco, nobody gets money until 2010. That's the big magic trick of the
Give Away, no money in 2009, everyone filling a return for 2009 will get a tax credit.
Yes even the SOB's that don't work will finally have a reason to use H&R Block.
This is the main reason BARAAAAAAAK's Stimlus Plan will never work, gots to have
cash to "Prime da Pump". Do you really think I am going to go out and buy a set of
24"'s and Pimp the Z-71 based on a "TAX CREDIK"??? Oh, just wait until April of
2010 though, the "RENT TO OWN" stores will rake it in. Waitin to get laid off so I
will be eligible to collect an extra $25.00 per week on my unemployment check,
that's in there also. Just think about all the stuff you can buy with $25.00 per week?
Only problem I see that we may have down here is that all the Yankees will be
moving south. Again!

Brotha Can You Spare A C Note?

Franco
02-12-2009, 10:13 PM
The only reason we have this bill is because the Dems want to appear to be fixing everything. They have to appear to be getting something done. I will say this for them, they are extremly crafty at manipulating the media. The O Team always has at least one plant(person) in the audience that shifts attention away from any real probing questions.

YardleyLabs
02-12-2009, 10:23 PM
Stopped at the local GetITANDGO for gas and milk tonight.
The clerk told me that starting in April cigarettes will increase
in price from $4.00 per pack to $6.00. I asked him if ObomoS
picture would be printed on the Kool Filter KINGS. Na, most
of the poor SOB'S that voted for him will believe it's the
Conservative Devil that caused them smokes to increase in
price. RIGHT??????????????


Stockin Up Now

Are you suggesting it's going up because of the $0.39/pack federal tax?

John Norris
02-13-2009, 04:11 PM
The only reason we have this bill is because the Dems want to appear to be fixing everything. They have to appear to be getting something done. I will say this for them, they are extremly crafty at manipulating the media. The O Team always has at least one plant(person) in the audience that shifts attention away from any real probing questions.

This video clearly shows that George Bush tried to warn Congress starting in 2001, that this economic crisis was coming, if something was not done. But congress refused to listen, along with the arrogant, Congressman Barney Frank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

luvmylabs23139
02-13-2009, 04:44 PM
Are you suggesting it's going up because of the $0.39/pack federal tax?
The federal cig tax is going up from $0.39 to $1.0066 effective
March 31, 2009.
It is suposed to pay for the SCHIP welfare stuff. Only problem is 22 million people would need to START smoking for it to cover the cost of this expanded welfare.

YardleyLabs
02-13-2009, 05:56 PM
The federal cig tax is going up from $0.39 to $1.0066 effective
March 31, 2009.
It is suposed to pay for the SCHIP welfare stuff. Only problem is 22 million people would need to START smoking for it to cover the cost of this expanded welfare.

60 cents doesn't exactly explain a $2/pack price increase. In 1960, Federal excise taxes equaled 47% of the price charged by wholesalers per pack. Today they represent 15% of the wholesale price. As a former smoker, i don't like self righteous "sin taxes" on cigarettes or alcohol. However, the Federal taxes have not been a significant cause for changes in cigarette prices over the last 40 years. The same cannot be said of state and local taxes.

Julie R.
02-13-2009, 06:34 PM
60 cents doesn't exactly explain a $2/pack price increase. In 1960, Federal excise taxes equaled 47% of the price charged by wholesalers per pack. Today they represent 15% of the wholesale price. As a former smoker, i don't like self righteous "sin taxes" on cigarettes or alcohol. However, the Federal taxes have not been a significant cause for changes in cigarette prices over the last 40 years. The same cannot be said of state and local taxes.

Jeff, I agree (finally we agree on something! ;-)) I don't smoke any more, either but the sin tax on cigarettes always bothered me. It's not like the money's used to keep teens from starting, help smokers quit and/or help those debilitated by emphysema and other smoking related diseases. Not to mention the windfalls from the massive tobacco company settlements--billions paid out with very little of that used for smoking related programs. I'm surprised the libs milk the cigarette cash cow with such a vengeance, this is one tax that definitely hits minorities and the poor hardest.

luvmylabs23139
02-13-2009, 06:46 PM
Here's what the dems did. They increased the federal tax on cigs as part of their expansion of SCHIP. They claimed that the increased cig tax will pay for the cost of the expansion of SCHIP. However, it will not even come close to paying for it, so smoker or not you will be paying for expanded welfare.

D Beard
02-13-2009, 07:15 PM
plus the state of kentucky signed into law today an additional
60 cent tax on pack of cigarettes and 7% sales tax on alcohol to address the states nearly $500 million budget shortfall.

Raymond Little
02-13-2009, 07:17 PM
Federal taxes have not been a significant cause for changes in cigarette prices over the last 40 years

I CALL B.S ON THAT ONE JEFF

Gerry Clinchy
02-14-2009, 11:40 AM
Interestingly, I think the cigarette taxes are the least effective. Each time the tax goes up, at least some smokers will give up the habit. Thus, the higher tax applies to fewer items. And I do believe that more teens are aware of the dangers of smoking as the long-term education finally begins to kick in, and so fewer new smokers are being added as older ones either give it up or die.

It seems to make the politicians look good (from a number of standpoints) to raise the tax on cigarettes. When it finally occurs to everyone that this particular tax is not generating the anticipated increased revenues, they'll have to find something else to tax.

I think the windfall of funds from the cigarette "settlements" have been only marginally used for their intended purpose. There have been some funds directed toward education to deter new smokers. Not much, from what I can see, to help existing smokers quit. Possibly less than that to assist those who suffer from smoking-related diseases. Perhaps another demonstration at how ineffective government is at using funds effectively?

It occurs to me that maybe we should legalize several recreational drugs; manufacture them ourselves and place high tariffs on imports of these items. Thus, save some money on enforcement of illegal drugs, create new jobs and create new tax revenues.

Yes, I am saying this tongue in cheek. While there are some who believe this should be the done with marijuana, I don't think that could be any less deleterious than smoking tobacco.

Cody Covey
02-14-2009, 11:45 AM
they have in the bill to help smokers quit as well...what happens when all those smokers they are hoping quit, quit. how will they fund schip then

luvmylabs23139
02-14-2009, 01:11 PM
they have in the bill to help smokers quit as well...what happens when all those smokers they are hoping quit, quit. how will they fund schip then

They arleady can't fund the incresae in SCHIP, but we aren't suposed to have that figured out. After all the "KING" says it pays for itself.

John Schmidt
02-14-2009, 05:39 PM
Federal taxes have not been a significant cause for changes in cigarette prices over the last 40 years

I CALL B.S ON THAT ONE JEFF

I suppose that googling 'federal tobacco tax' might reveal something like this:

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0092.pdf

Back in 1960, the federal tobacco tax was $.08 and the average retail price was $.26, now the federal tobacco tax is $.39 and the average retail price is $4.00. You have a nearly a five fold increase in the federal tax, but you have a 15 fold increase in the average retail price. Now depending on your state, you are likely to have a significant state tax on cigarettes of around $1.19 per pack. And you are claiming that the federal tobacco tax is a significant part of the increase in the price of your 'smokes' ??

Careful where you step, you don't want to step in your own BS.

John Schmidt

YardleyLabs
02-14-2009, 06:31 PM
Federal taxes have not been a significant cause for changes in cigarette prices over the last 40 years

I CALL B.S ON THAT ONE JEFF

Since 1951, Federal taxes on cigarettes have increased as follows:

1951 - 1982: $0.08/pack
1982: $0.16
1991: $0.20
1993: $0.24
2000: $0.34
2002: $0.39

In 1969, the Federal tax represented abut 50% of the average wholesale price of apack of cigarettes. In 2009, it represents abut 15% of the average wholesale price of cigarettes. If Federal taxes had been increased simply by the rate of inflation since 1951, the tax rate would be over $2/pack. Even with the increase to over $1/pack recently adopted, the real dollar value of Federal excise taxes on cigarettes has declined 50%. Meanwhile, the actual increase in cigarette prices has been greater than general inflation because of large increases in state and local taxes, costs associated with the liability settlement, and general increases by the tobacco companies themselves.

YardleyLabs
02-14-2009, 06:37 PM
Interestingly, I think the cigarette taxes are the least effective. Each time the tax goes up, at least some smokers will give up the habit. Thus, the higher tax applies to fewer items. And I do believe that more teens are aware of the dangers of smoking as the long-term education finally begins to kick in, and so fewer new smokers are being added as older ones either give it up or die.

It seems to make the politicians look good (from a number of standpoints) to raise the tax on cigarettes. When it finally occurs to everyone that this particular tax is not generating the anticipated increased revenues, they'll have to find something else to tax.

I think the windfall of funds from the cigarette "settlements" have been only marginally used for their intended purpose. There have been some funds directed toward education to deter new smokers. Not much, from what I can see, to help existing smokers quit. Possibly less than that to assist those who suffer from smoking-related diseases. Perhaps another demonstration at how ineffective government is at using funds effectively?

It occurs to me that maybe we should legalize several recreational drugs; manufacture them ourselves and place high tariffs on imports of these items. Thus, save some money on enforcement of illegal drugs, create new jobs and create new tax revenues.

Yes, I am saying this tongue in cheek. While there are some who believe this should be the done with marijuana, I don't think that could be any less deleterious than smoking tobacco.

As with most sin taxes, the "benefits" are seen whether the total taxes collected goes up or not. The primary objective historically has been to reduce consumption. However, while that has been the theory, governments have become unwitting accomplices in tobacco profiteering as their budgets have become more dependent on tobacco revenues. Many have hypothesized that one factor that has contributed to the ineffectiveness of smoking cessation programs that were to have been established by states has been state fears that reductions in smoking would hurt financially.

Steve Hester
02-15-2009, 09:47 AM
"As with most sin taxes, the "benefits" are seen whether the total taxes collected goes up or not. The primary objective historically has been to reduce consumption."

This is total bullsh!t. The primary objective historically is to tax things that have become socially unacceptable because they are an easy target for the tax.

M Remington
02-15-2009, 10:05 AM
Cigarettes are a scourge on society. In addition to the obvious personal health consequences, they do the following:

Reduce productivity by causing serious health issues. People who smoke tend to miss more days of work because of bronchitis and other respiratory issues. Also, the smoke breaks that are taken each day effect productivity.

Someone has to pay for a great deal of the medical care caused by smoking-related ailments. Research tells us that most people who smoke tend to come from the lower socioeconomic levels. So, our tax dollars pay for a great deal of smoking-related medical care.

Raise healthcare costs. Those smokers who are insured are costing the insurance industry more than non-smokers--someone has to make up the difference, so non-smokers often do.

We all know the effects of cigarette smoking. And it has become socially unacceptable. If the taxes cause people to stop smoking, I'm all for them. Our society will be better off, both fiscally and health-wise.

Julie R.
02-15-2009, 10:40 AM
Cigarettes are a scourge on society. In addition to the obvious personal health consequences, they do the following:

Reduce productivity by causing serious health issues. People who smoke tend to miss more days of work because of bronchitis and other respiratory issues. Also, the smoke breaks that are taken each day effect productivity.

Someone has to pay for a great deal of the medical care caused by smoking-related ailments. Research tells us that most people who smoke tend to come from the lower socioeconomic levels. So, our tax dollars pay for a great deal of smoking-related medical care.

Raise healthcare costs. Those smokers who are insured are costing the insurance industry more than non-smokers--someone has to make up the difference, so non-smokers often do.

We all know the effects of cigarette smoking. And it has become socially unacceptable. If the taxes cause people to stop smoking, I'm all for them. Our society will be better off, both fiscally and health-wise.

Marx, I don't believe anyone here suggested that smoking was a good thing. There's been an argument postulated that the federal tax on cigarettes is the reason they cost so much now, as well as general agreement that cigarette tax revenue, whether local, state or national level, has not been used for its intended purpose, and that is smoking cessation and preventative programs and treatment of smoking related illnesses. I'd be willing to bet cigarette taxes and states' profits from the tobacco settlements would have covered all those 'costs to society' you're ranting about and more. However the fact is that the revenue from taxes and big money tobacco suits has been treated like a cash cow for politicians to fund their pet pork projects.

Although I think some of us will be in agreement that certain smokers are a scourge on society. ::::coughcoughObomo::coughcough:::

And as I noted earlier, it seems kind of hypocritical to me that the limousine liberals, the supposed champion of the lower socio economic classes and minorities, want to tax smokers. A group mostly made up of minorities and/or lower socioeconomic classes.

Frankly I agree with Gerry Clinchy, I think weed and crack and meth and all those other ghetto drugs should be legalized and tax the hell out of them. Gets rid of the dealers and thug culture that's grown up around them, and provides a steady stream of revenue for addiction treatment. I have no idea how you could do it, but weed would be a good start. To me it's no worse than booze. No man that was stoned ever beat his wife or shot someone over a 40 like drunks do daily. And what an economic stimulus! ROTFLMAO

Gerry Clinchy
02-15-2009, 10:55 AM
quote=M Remington;400779]Cigarettes are a scourge on society. [/quote]

So many more things that deserve the title "scourge": Alcoholism, drug abuse, AIDS.


People who smoke tend to miss more days of work because of bronchitis and other respiratory issues.

That's probably on the increase over the past several years, since smokers must go outside the building (in most cases) if they want to smoke :)


Also, the smoke breaks that are taken each day effect productivity.

Labor laws in our state require that all workers get a 15-minute break every four hours.

Nobody would argue with the facts that cigarette smoking isn't good for you. OTOH, neither is unprotected sex or sharing of needles that lead to AIDS. Yet, while smoking has become
socially unacceptable, we embrace "alternate lifestyles" and spend lots of money rehabbing drug abusers (quite possibly also
tend to come from the lower socioeconomic levels).

If smoking is on a par with AIDS, why do we spend so much money on AIDS education ... and a lot of that money in undeveloped countries ... and much less on smoking education? I think Jeff hit the nail on the head when he connected that the states (whose cigarette taxes are typically very high) don't want to lose their revenues no matter how bad the habit may be for anyone's health.

I'll admit to being a bit "sassy" in my response, but maybe my initial thought has merit. We spend millions (maybe hundreds of millions) on trying to enforce laws on prostitution. That has never been a very successful endeavor. Why not make it legal and tax it? Finally! a way to get many of our legislators to pay taxes :)

Julie R.
02-15-2009, 11:30 AM
Nobody would argue with the facts that cigarette smoking isn't good for you. OTOH, neither is unprotected sex or sharing of needles that lead to AIDS. Yet, while smoking has become , we embrace "alternate lifestyles" and spend lots of money rehabbing drug abusers (quite possibly also ).

If smoking is on a par with AIDS, why do we spend so much money on AIDS education ... and a lot of that money in undeveloped countries ... and much less on smoking education? I think Jeff hit the nail on the head when he connected that the states (whose cigarette taxes are typically very high) don't want to lose their revenues no matter how bad the habit may be for anyone's health.

I'll admit to being a bit "sassy" in my response, but maybe my initial thought has merit. We spend millions (maybe hundreds of millions) on trying to enforce laws on prostitution. That has never been a very successful endeavor. Why not make it legal and tax it? Finally! a way to get many of our legislators to pay taxes :)

ROTFLMAO http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Best.gifhttp://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/yourock.gif

You hit the nail on the head. Not just their whores, imagine all the tax revenue our drug using politicians would pay if drugs and prostitution were legalized. Like my favorite, hizzoner Marion "Bitch set me up" Barry, who's even now facing jail time for not paying his taxes while on parole. Smokers and whoremongers are the last minority it's PC to vilify. Even drug addicts are protected classes now.

"Hand over those Kools NOW! You didn't pay enough tax on them!" http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/PoPo.gif

Gerry Clinchy
02-15-2009, 12:21 PM
ROTFLMAO http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/yourock.gif

You hit the nail on the head. Not just their whores, imagine all the tax revenue our drug using politicians would pay if drugs and prostitution were legalized. .


And they couldn't even claim that they "forgot" to pay the tax since it will work just like other businesses ... it will be built into the retail price :)

Why haven't we thought of this sooner?

YardleyLabs
02-15-2009, 12:57 PM
For what it's worth, I also feel that most drugs and prostitution should be legalized and taxed. Apart from the benefits of better regulation on practices and distribution, and tax revenues, this would also dramatically reduce our prison population which is now largely the product of drug laws. I'm not saying that many of those people wouldn't find another road into jail, but I still suspect the numbers would be greatly reduced with substantial savings in government budgets.

Raymond Little
02-17-2009, 09:54 PM
Are you suggesting it's going up because of the $0.39/pack federal tax?

Jeff, anytime the Feds increase SIN taxes, states follow with their own set.
The Feds just set the benchmark. How long do you think it will be before his
PEEPS realize the Mesiah is just Chavez Light???????????????? Personally I
hope they all go down the rat hole with him.

Can't Wait Regards

code3retrievers
02-17-2009, 10:56 PM
FApart from the benefits of better regulation on practices and distribution, and tax revenues, this would also dramatically reduce our prison population which is now largely the product of drug laws.


So the drug laws are the problem and not the drug use or criminal behavior. How about you abstain from doing drugs in the first place.

Once again, some one on the left does not want to accept personal responsibility. It's always something or someone else fault.

badbullgator
02-18-2009, 08:29 AM
So the drug laws are the problem and not the drug use or criminal behavior. How about you abstain from doing drugs in the first place.

Once again, some one on the left does not want to accept personal responsibility. It's always something or someone else fault.


This is not just necessarily the left that feels this way. While there are drug offenders that should be in prison, there are far more that should not be taking up space and tax dollars. Drug crimes such as killings etc are crimes no matter if drugs are the motive or not. The very fact that marijuana is illegal and alcohol and tobacco are not is absurd. Other drugs, coke, meth, heroinÖare truly a health issue and addictions should be treated rather than locking someone up with professional criminals. You donít see alcoholics going to prison for possession of alcohol and the only difference is that alcohol is legal. It is MHO that alcohol does far more damage to society than drugs, and pot in particular, but you donít see much about it because the media only covers law breakers. The only time you see anything about alcohol is when there is a DUI accident. Growing up in South Florida in the 70ís I know first hand about a lot of the drug trade and know many people that were involved in it at the time and a good number who got caught and went to prison. Should they have gone, yes they broke the law, but several went for 20 years and believe me they were not a big threat to society smuggling pot. Funny that so many movies and people glorify bootleg liquor manufactures and runners during the prohibition yet pot growers and smugglers are evil. Also interesting that at several HT I have been at recently the big thing has been moonshine and not just with one or two people.
Please donít paint all conservatives with the same brush. This is a large part of what is wrong with my party. It is assumed by the party leaders that to be conservative you MUST be for every conservative platform and that is simply not the case. I differ on several issues including drugs, abortion (not that I think it is right, I donít, but more that I donít believe it is a political issue because the main argument is religious and moral and I donít think the government has any business setting religious or moral standards), and particularly stem cell research (the use of embryonic stem cells is the issue and it goes to the republican abortion views and they are FAR form the same thing).
BTW- not sure where he said the criminal activity was not a problem. Criminal activity is a crime weather drugs, guns, alcohol, or none of the above are involved. If drugs were treated as a health issue rather than a crime and they were not against the law the criminal element would not be involved with the dealing and therefore crimes involved with drugs. You don;t see moonshiners doing drive by shootings or having turf wars now do you? You are not going to have gangs controling drug sales if you can by a pack of pot at the local 7-11

Steve Amrein
02-18-2009, 09:17 AM
What I dont understand is how a proven CANCER causing delivery system is allowed to be sold. Right now the brilliance of lawmakers have outlawed minibikes. Why you ask cause the are dangerous and serious harm could come from a crash Noooooo. Some of the paint used may contain lead and it seams that thousands of kids are currently, as we speak poisoning them selve by licking the paint off their minibikes. Cant we put a warning on minibikes that say dont lick or eat the paint. Because you may be ingesting a lead containing paint. Wouldnt a child have bigger problems if his only food source was a new minibike.

code3retrievers
02-18-2009, 09:45 AM
My statement was about personal responsibility. It does not matter what substance you are abusing alcohol, pot, meth or heroin. If you know the risks and still insist on trying it then you deal with the responsibilities. If you legalize any substance then then government has put its official stamp on it. It then makes money on it and then has a vested interest in people consuming that product.

Take cigarets, in our state the law makers passed a law so that the cigaret tax is supposed to cover some child health care. Guess what the smoking rate is down and now they are whining that there is not enough money coming in from smoking.

I have a good friend that has a daughter hooked on meth. He has done everything to help her to get off. She has been arrested more then 10 times and her last is the first time she is facing any serious jail time. The longest she has done is 1 month. She was facing 10 years but has worked a plea that once again requires no jail time, but the judge could still give her some. The point is very few people are in jail for drug minor drug offenses. You were either dealing or have such a long history (addict) that it may the only way off.

By the way, my friend hopes she gets some time so that it may keep her away from the stuff long enough that she can finally kick it.

I will say it again no matter what substance it is, it's about personal responsibility and that is the difference between and conservative and liberal. A liberal will usually blame the system, the law, society, economic status, lack of treatment or the persons childhood. Most conservatives will put the blame squarely on the individual.

badbullgator
02-18-2009, 10:11 AM
I have a good friend that has a daughter hooked on meth. He has done everything to help her to get off. She has been arrested more then 10 times and her last is the first time she is facing any serious jail time. The longest she has done is 1 month. She was facing 10 years but has worked a plea that once again requires no jail time, but the judge could still give her some. The point is very few people are in jail for drug minor drug offenses. You were either dealing or have such a long history (addict) that it may the only way off.

I disagree on this point, few minor offenders in jail and as you point out your friends daughter (and I can only assume since he is your friend he is a good guy) is HOOKED on meth. Hooked is something that you can and should take personal responcibility for. Hooked can be treated and is a health issue not a legal issue. Stealing to get money for drugs is a legal issue. Doing drugs is a personal issue you must be responcible for

By the way, my friend hopes she gets some time so that it may keep her away from the stuff long enough that she can finally kick it.

That may be one of the funniest statements of all time :D:D:p

I will say it again no matter what substance it is, it's about personal responsibility and that is the difference between and conservative and liberal. A liberal will usually blame the system, the law, society, economic status, lack of treatment or the persons childhood. Most conservatives will put the blame squarely on the individual.

Here you are right and wrong. I agree you must take responcibility for your own actions and that is the point. Laws made by the government place personal responcibility in the hands of law enforcment and not the individual. To make it illegal to have or do drugs is the government taking responcibility for you and trying to keep you from being responcible for yourself. The consequences of drug use are evident and if you truely believed that you must be responcible for yourself you would not need laws to "help" you with that responcibility;-)



........................................

Vicki Worthington
02-18-2009, 03:42 PM
Once the tax cuts on income brackets--now 25% is highest I think--and capital gains (everyone whose pension plans/IRAs/403b/401K is tied to mutual fund investments) runs out, you will all forget the "sin tax"!

We have been brainwashed that only the rich benefit from reduced income taxes and removal of taxes on dividends. Well, I'm sure as heck not rich and I don't want to pay the taxes that will result from expiration of these tax breaks!

The middle class has never been the "poverty level". IMO the poverty level has been indexed for inflation, but the middle class has not. That's why you're considered "rich" if you earn $65K annually!

It's time people stood on their own two feet! It's time Government provided for the things that benefit ALL Americans and kept its nose out of those issues that only benefit a select few or some special interest group or another.

The industrial base in this country has eroded to nearly nothing over the last several decades. Why, because we have allowed industry to expatriate incomes to avoid taxes, we have denied reciprocity for our goods in developed European countries while opening our doors without restriction to their cheap labor markets. We have driven American industry nearly out of existance with open-door policies on imports. Industries that existed domestically even 10 years ago are now extinct--most scientific equipment and laboratory equipment must be purchased from outside the country because there is no domestic market.

We need to wake up! It's not Democrates or Republicans. As long as the politicians have all of us arguing over which party and which personality, we we never be focused on which ISSUE.

Do you know that the stimulus bill once contained a provision that all moneys awarded as contracts and grants from the stimulus package must employ only U.S. Citizens or Legal Aliens? Well, if you see it now, it does not. The Senate Democrates together with 3 Republicans had it removed. Now why would they do this? To assure that they court the next wave of voters come re-election time!

code3retrievers
02-18-2009, 05:19 PM
"That may be one of the funniest statements of all time"

You may find it funny but my friend does not. He has tried to get his daughter into every treatment program and more. His daughter is genius level IQ with two degrees, she came from a morally sound and economically advantaged background. She tried meth one time and was hooked. Her statement not mine.

She has been using for the past 8 years and can not shake the habit. So even though you find it funny, I find it sad. His daughters habit has destroyed her life. She can not longer function with out getting high.

He has given up hope on his daughter and would just like her to live long enough that she may come up with the courage to get her self off. So with her in jail he hopes she may have more difficulty finding the stuff and may be forced to enter a treatment program.

I am a Fire fighter and see the affects of drug use everyday, including alcohol. Personally I would like to see it all band but my libertarian streak does not allow me to do so.

If you want to smoke and kill your self feel free. Same with alcohol just don't expect me to foot the bill for your treatment.

Richard Halstead
02-18-2009, 09:44 PM
This question sounds as though Jabba the Hut had written the title.

badbullgator
02-19-2009, 08:29 AM
"That may be one of the funniest statements of all time"

You may find it funny but my friend does not. He has tried to get his daughter into every treatment program and more. His daughter is genius level IQ with two degrees, she came from a morally sound and economically advantaged background. She tried meth one time and was hooked. Her statement not mine.

ANd this proves my point of health issue not legal issue. It can happen to anyone and if you chose to take that road (with a genius IQ no less) that is your choice and the goberment does not need to protect you from yourself. Remember you are the one preaching personal resoponcibility, yet hoping (or at least your friend is) that the legal system take responcibility. BTW- the reason I find it funny is becasue very few people "get straight" in jail. I worked for many years in drug programs and very, very few ever came out of jail any better than they went in. Genius IQ with a good family....rehab will work, but she has to be responcible for following through

She has been using for the past 8 years and can not shake the habit. So even though you find it funny, I find it sad. His daughters habit has destroyed her life. She can not longer function with out getting high.

You missed my point, I don't find her. or anyones addiction funny, I find it funny that people think prison will take care of the problem, but I do understand the desperation

He has given up hope on his daughter and would just like her to live long enough that she may come up with the courage to get her self off. So with her in jail he hopes she may have more difficulty finding the stuff and may be forced to enter a treatment program.

Well I wish them both the best, but you know the old saying "birds of a feather..." it is just a big cage of birds just like one another and it gives them lots more contacts when they get out. JAIL/PRISON DOES NOT REHAB, IT ONLY HOUSES.

I am a Fire fighter and see the affects of drug use everyday, including alcohol. Personally I would like to see it all band but my libertarian streak does not allow me to do so.

Well thanks for your service, my father was a fireman as well. So you reluctantly agree with freedom of choice? Let people decide if they want to be productive or a junkie or if they are able to use drugs recreationaly just as people do with alcohol. If a crime is commeted while they are using drugs OR alcohol then punish them for that crime as you would with anything else. Legal to have a gun, not legal to carry it into a courthouse. Keep the gun where it is legal no problem, take it where it is not and there is a problem

If you want to smoke and kill your self feel free. Same with alcohol just don't expect me to foot the bill for your treatment.

So it is OK with alcohol which is just as addictive, feel free..., but any thing else is out....your libertarian streak is pretty thin.


...................................

Hoosier
02-19-2009, 08:49 AM
BBG I probably know 100 drywallers and plasterers and everyone of them want drugs to be legal. What's the deal with that?:cool:

badbullgator
02-19-2009, 09:16 AM
BBG I probably know 100 drywallers and plasterers and everyone of them want drugs to be legal. What's the deal with that?:cool:


I don't know if you know it or not, but I use to own a drywall and plastering company..... Funny thing is that getting workers during the heyday was tough becasue there was plenty of work to go around. My buddy also had a drywall/plastering company and he decided he would start drug testing before hiring people......that lasted for about 6 months because as soon as they found out it was a drug free work place they went somewhere else.
don't aks, don't tell in this case.

BTW- if you humped drywall all day you would drink and do drugs too:D

Hoosier
02-19-2009, 09:24 AM
I don't know if you know it or not, but I use to own a drywall and plastering company..... Funny thing is that getting workers during the heyday was tough becasue there was plenty of work to go around. My buddy also had a drywall/plastering company and he decided he would start drug testing before hiring people......that lasted for about 6 months because as soon as they found out it was a drug free work place they went somewhere else.
don't aks, don't tell in this case.

BTW- if you humped drywall all day you would drink and do drugs too:D

Was in the drywall and steel stud framing business for 20 years

Richard Halstead
02-21-2009, 01:17 AM
When I was in college my roommate and I sanded drywall. That was in the days when the drywall plaster had asbestos fibers for strength aound 1969-70.

Hew
02-21-2009, 02:30 AM
I don't know if you know it or not, but I use to own a drywall and plastering company..... Funny thing is that getting workers during the heyday was tough becasue there was plenty of work to go around. My buddy also had a drywall/plastering company and he decided he would start drug testing before hiring people......that lasted for about 6 months because as soon as they found out it was a drug free work place they went somewhere else.
don't aks, don't tell in this case.

BTW- if you humped drywall all day you would drink and do drugs too:D
I didn't know that about you. Neat. You look more like a drywaller than a scientist. :D I bet you could tote four 12 footers at a time.

badbullgator
02-21-2009, 06:27 PM
I didn't know that about you. Neat. You look more like a drywaller than a scientist. :D I bet you could tote four 12 footers at a time.


Not quite, but back in the day I could hang them full sheets by myself one at a time on the ceiling;-)

Hoosier
02-21-2009, 06:57 PM
Not quite, but back in the day I could hang them full sheets by myself one at a time on the ceiling;-)

Without breaking it? T-pole, Lift?

badbullgator
02-24-2009, 08:34 AM
Without breaking it? T-pole, Lift?

7 foot wing span (keep in mind I am 6'4" 250ish and have looong arms) and a hard head;-)
Tack it, lift it, hammer it (I could only do it in corners and butting up to the walls so I had something to push against)