The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: fightingquaker13 on June 11, 2010, 04:21:11 PM
-
Sometimes I despair of this state. I just got my drivers licence renewal notice today. What do I need to do to renew? Mail the Governor $48. :o I mean look. I have no more desire to stand in line behind a bunch of Haitians for the great joy that is dealing with the workers at the DMV any more than the next guy. Still, its been seven years since I got my licence. Do you not think they would want to see my face to make sure I was me? Maybe give me a vision test before turning me loose on the roads? Because hello, I got the very traditional "you're almost 40" birthday gift of realizing that your arms are only so long and yes you do in fact need glasses because otherwise you aren't going to be able to read that book. ;) I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. Still, it would reassure me to at least know that my fellow motorists had their vision tested at least once in a decade, just so they can swerve around the iguanas. ;D
FQ13
-
Renew online, skip the line, and kick that iguana.... ::)
-
FQ, what happened to the widely publicized need for a ba-zillian pieces of ID, blood type, DNA sample and notarized picture of your firstborn?
Florida was supposed to be at the leading edge of the new universal ID system. I think HAZ had to show a birth certificate, a utility bill, and some other form of ID.
Just wonderin' ???. If you can "skate by" by doing it on line, why would any terrorist want to go to the DMV?
Submitted by a perllexed Crusader.
-
I actually had to go the Dept of Public safety last year to renew, before that, it was 15 years, and my next review with vision test will be in 2015, here in Texas, if your driving record is clean, you get favors. Last time was passing the 50 year mark.
-
We have to have new picture taken every ten years. Other than that, we can do it on line, even when I'm blind, senile, pooping in my diddies old...like some of you guys! :P
My father in law joked when he renewed on his eightieth that he would need to go back till he was ninety. He stopped driving a few weeks later.
-
Just renewed mine last year for 10 years online. My wife renewed hers a few years back via snail-mail for 15 years (but Ga soon after went to a 10 yr max). The state does have an age cut-off for online and and mail renewals....but it is upwards of 64 because of the vision test.
-
Wow, I wish it were that easy to renew your license in Kentucky! We are forced to actually go to the DMV, no online nor mail option, every four years! You aren't required to submit a stool sample when renewing, however, our current license is good enough. If you lose your license, it's a different story, though. Then I think you are required to present a birth certificate, social security card, and piece of mail addressed to you. KY may also require another form of id, when replacing a lost license, but I can't remember.
Swoop
-
Shouldn't the libertarian in you want there to be no such thing as government issuing a license to drive? ::)
-
Shouldn't the libertarian in you want there to be no such thing as government issuing a license to drive? ::)
Yep. But the sane person in me who has to share the road with half the freaking third world, construction dump trucks driven by drivers apparently payed in crack or meth, and geriatric yankees who can't see over the damn steering wheel disagrees. ;)
FQ13
-
We have to have new picture taken every ten years. Other than that, we can do it on line, even when I'm blind, senile, pooping in my diddies old...like some of you guys! :P
My father in law joked when he renewed on his eightieth that he would need to go back till he was ninety. He stopped driving a few weeks later.
He's not kidding, I've been behind that person on Rt 1, 45 MPH zone and Ma Kettle is doing a whopping 20 miles an hour. ::)
-
He's not kidding, I've been behind that person on Rt 1, 45 MPH zone and Ma Kettle is doing a whopping 20 miles an hour. ::)
In the left lane.
With the left turn signal on.
No, wait, that was on Rte. 19 north of Tampa.
-
Yep. But the sane person in me who has to share the road with half the freaking third world, construction dump trucks driven by drivers apparently payed in crack or meth, and geriatric yankees who can't see over the damn steering wheel disagrees. ;)
FQ13
So, I guess you have changed your mind on ending the prohibition on drugs now? Can you imagine how many more crack/meth dump truck drivers you would have to deal with if it could be bought at the local Quickie Mart? ;D
-
So, I guess you have changed your mind on ending the prohibition on drugs now? Can you imagine how many more crack/meth dump truck drivers you would have to deal with if it could be bought at the local Quickie Mart? ;D
None, because the people who are going to use them already do despite the billions of $ we waste every year to stop them.
Any one who drinks and supports the "war on some drugs" is as stupid and illogical as a gun grabber.
-
None, because the people who are going to use them already do despite the billions of $ we waste every year to stop them.
Any one who drinks and supports the "war on some drugs" is as stupid and illogical as a gun grabber.
If they were made legal more people would partake and traffic fatalities would increase significantly.... The same thing happened with prohibition. We often cite how cars kill more people then guns, but anyone who seriously wanted to make a dent in those numbers would first make drinking illegal again (FYI, I dont want to make drinking illegal).
Many people stay away from those "some drugs" simply because they are illegal and because they wish to remain on the right side of the law. If the law were changed, the number of people who are going to use them would increase.
The war on "some drugs" is nothing more then an attempt to stem the tide of detrimental effects that drugs have on society. It is not a war that will ever be won, and yes the money that it cost to fund is astronomical (however, much is funded with drug money) but you would never want to live in a society where any and all drugs are legal.
-
Eric, re-read everything you wrote and replace the word drugs with guns.
Just sayin', YMMV.
-
Eric, re-read everything you wrote and replace the word drugs with guns.
Just sayin', YMMV.
Re-read it and substitute anything you want for the word drugs - right to free speach, right to vote, ability to read, right to life, freedom of religion, etc etc. You can play that silly little game all day, but aside from a debate about who is the most hardcore libertarian it means nothing in the real world. You are comparing apples and cinder blocks.
Guns are not addictive (Yes they are like chips, but you know what I mean). They dont cause crime, they dont cause child neglect, they dont impare driving, they dont diminish your health, and I have never heard of a single case of anyone ever sucking a dick to get a gun... Need I go on?
All I am trying to say here, is that you dont want to live in a society where crack, coke, meth etc are legal. It will greatly increase the proportion of the population that uses, and that stuff can quickly turn fine upstanding citizens into crazed crack heads willing to do anything to get their next fix. It would also increase traffic fatalities.
Yes, you can easily make the case that pot should be legal nation wide, but there are not enough people that smoke pot to ever get that to actually happen - or they are too lazy. Its hard to tell. I personally dont think pot should be legal (JMHO) but I would have no problems with making it essentially on par with a traffic violation.
-
If they were made legal more people would partake and traffic fatalities would increase significantly.... The same thing happened with prohibition. We often cite how cars kill more people then guns, but anyone who seriously wanted to make a dent in those numbers would first make drinking illegal again (FYI, I dont want to make drinking illegal).
Many people stay away from those "some drugs" simply because they are illegal and because they wish to remain on the right side of the law. If the law were changed, the number of people who are going to use them would increase.
The war on "some drugs" is nothing more then an attempt to stem the tide of detrimental effects that drugs have on society. It is not a war that will ever be won, and yes the money that it cost to fund is astronomical (however, much is funded with drug money) but you would never want to live in a society where any and all drugs are legal.
so, these same folks who want to stay on the right side of the law won't go DUI and get on the wrong side of the law....net zero increase in DUI
-
I didn't say I don't agree, just lookin' from a different angle.
-
so, these same folks who want to stay on the right side of the law won't go DUI and get on the wrong side of the law....net zero increase in DUI
Knowing I was over the legal limit and might get a DUI has made me hand over the keys several times when "I knew I would be fine" to get home. I also dont smoke pot mainly because it is illegal.
Prohibition does work on a macro level - it is estimated that it decreased alcohol consumption by 30%-50% in the overall population.
-
Unfortunatly, we humans are all susceptible to overindulgent behavior. Making something legal or illegal won't ever change that and it doesn't matter if it's alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex or whatever. Those of us who've managed to avoid letting it get the better of us won't change either. Some folks can, some folks can't. If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk!
I'd much rather see the monies wasted on the drug wars going to other, more fruitful endeavors.
Speaking from experience, there are more people addicted to legal drugs in this country than the illegal ones, it's just hidden behind a prescription label. After my accident, it took me nearly a year to kick the pain medications and I'm not talking ibuprofen.
-
Guns are not addictive (Yes they are like chips, but you know what I mean). They dont cause crime, they dont cause child neglect, they dont impare driving, they dont diminish your health, and I have never heard of a single case of anyone ever sucking a dick to get a gun... Need I go on?
I'm staying out of the main argument...........but, I would like to let you know that is exactly how a good friend's wife ended up with a brand new Glock 27 (she likes guns)........... ;D ;D
I know, I know....that's not the same circumstance you were getting at...but...none-the-less.....
(That makes one case) ;D
And now I return you to your regularly scheduled debate...... :-* :-*
-
I'm staying out of the main argument...........but, I would like to let you know that is exactly how a good friend's wife ended up with a brand new Glock 27 (she likes guns)
That could be the inspiration for a new and very interesting song / video for Steve Lee. :o
Swoop
-
, and I have never heard of a single case of anyone ever sucking a dick to get a gun..
I'm staying out of the main argument...........but, I would like to let you know that is exactly how a good friend's wife ended up with a brand new Glock 27 (she likes guns)........... ;D ;D
I know, I know....that's not the same circumstance you were getting at...but...none-the-less.....
(That makes one case) ;D
And now I return you to your regularly scheduled debate...... :-* :-*
Well, so much for that theory ;D
The "War on some drugs" was never an "attempt to stem the tide", it was a racist jobs program for Prohibition agents who were losing their jobs.
Am I the only one who noticed that the arguments against legalization are just like the ones against guns, based on emotion, opinion and prejudice. while I also am not citing any hard numbers, I WILL put forward my source material which comes from Glenn Beck, "Arguing with Idiots, and Larry Elder " 10 Things you can not say in America".
By saying legalized drugs cause crime you are just as F-ed up as people who say guns cause violence.
The fact is, as any one with an open mind and an ounce of sense will realize, these problems are both caused by irresponsible behavior of a person and no rational person would attach blame to an inanimate substance or object.
The cure is not "drug control, or gun control. It is self control.
-
That could be the inspiration for a new and very interesting song / video for Steve Lee. :o
Swoop
I'd bet Phil will try to write it for him now. ;D
-
Re Peg's comment: So is that the story behind your Glock 27?! ;D
Re Toms last comment: Yes, its the same rhetoric that the gun grabbers use, but that does not mean that it does not apply here and you certainly cant write it off just because drugs are technically inanimate objects. Its not that simplistic, Tom. Guns dont really have mind altering capabilities nor are they chemically addictive. Once a person picks up a gun they still have the cognative ability to tell right from wrong and are still able to control their choices and actions. People on drugs however dont really have much control over what they do when they are strung out.
Drug use does indeed cause crime. People that are strung out on heroin, meth, crack, etc do reach a point where they will do damn near anything to get their next fix - Exhibit-A being my earlier "suck a dick for crack" reference. (bonus points for anyone who can give me the movie thats from ;D) They will hurt the people they love, they will do felonious things that will send them to prison... they dont care... They are controled by a chemical addiction and must get another fix.
Its also not a stance based on emotion... Opinion is nothing more then a judgement... and there are many facts out there to help in making an informed judegement.... claiming prejudice is also a stretch.
-
Drug use does indeed cause crime. People that are strung out on heroin, meth, crack, etc do reach a point where they will do damn near anything to get their next fix - Exhibit-A being my earlier "suck a dick for crack" reference. (bonus points for anyone who can give me the movie thats from ) They will hurt the people they love, they will do felonious things that will send them to prison... they dont care... They are controled by a chemical addiction and must get another fix.
Eric, as you have likely observed, you and I are usually on the same side. But the point you present here is a very strong argument for de-criminalization/legalization of drugs. If both addicts (hard drugs) and casual users (grass, uppers, downers, etc.) were able to go to their local 7-11 and purchase whatever they wanted at a fair price without a huge mark-up going to organized crime and drug cartels, and with a nominal tax going to defray the national debt, there would be less crime. Even a heroin addict could collect enough cans and bottles to afford a days worth of dope IF the dope had a price tag of say $10. Crack is an adictive drug, yes. But it's also really cheap to make. Certainly, we'd be tossing some people of the trash heap of life. But, these are the people who would be a failure at life anyway. Are they worth salvaging? Maybe, and the tax from drug sales could go to treatment facilities for those who want to kick. I think they would get little patronage. And, without the huge profit, the cartels would be out of business almost overnight. Drug dealers? Who needs 'em when you can get your kicks at the mini-mart?
Now, please understand I am not pro-drug use. But I am pro-common sense.
Submitted by Crusader who would like a sane approach to street drugs and to drug cartels.
-
According to the stats, there are about half million crack addicts in the U.S. at any given time compared to 12-13 million people who are abusing Vicodin. Hyrdocodone addiction cost the U.S. about 500 billion dollars annually.
Where do we think we're going with this. Crusader makes the most valid point of this discussion, hands down! Addicts are always going to be addicted to something. That's why they're always "Recovering"!
-
Re Peg's comment: So is that the story behind your Glock 27?! ;D
AAArrrgh...the birrrd says NO!!!!
-
According to the stats, there are about half million crack addicts in the U.S. at any given time compared to 12-13 million people who are abusing Vicodin. Hyrdocodone addiction cost the U.S. about 500 billion dollars annually.
Where do we think we're going with this. Crusader makes the most valid point of this discussion, hands down! Addicts are always going to be addicted to something. That's why they're always "Recovering"!
Yeah thats kinda my point. I guarantee you that the vast majority of those 13 million people are not living under a bridge or inside a crack house. To sit here and say that there would be the same number of crack heads if you legalized all the hard stuff is a little silly. There would be many fine upstanding citizens that would end up flushing their lives away and taking other clean and sober people with them.
Yes, it would put the catrels out of business, but I think there are many down sides that would also come along with legalization. You cant just give everyone who wants to shoot up a padded room and say "have at it". There will be consiquences... You think you need to carry a gun now? Wait until you increase the number of methed out zombies walking (and driving) around by 20 or 30 percent.
-
Yeah thats kinda my point. I guarantee you that the vast majority of those 13 million people are not living under a bridge or inside a crack house. To sit here and say that there would be the same number of crack heads if you legalized all the hard stuff is a little silly.
What I was clumsily trying to emphisize was that I don't think that addiction to crack, methamphetamine or heroin would increase significantly. Will there be people that my experiment? Surely, but the problems that come from these cheap drugs is more urban in nature. My suggestion is that prescription drugs, opiates specifically, cause more harm than any of these street drugs combined.
I'm 53, to my knowledge, I've never met a crack or meth addict but I'm damn sure I know several ocycontin or vicodin addicts and those are the folks that scare me. Imagine a guy running a 350 ton press brake who's hopped up on vicodin and not paying attention or a welder who decides he's gonna mess with a power panel and causes an arc flash possibly killing anyone in the near vacinity. I've worked in industries that are deadly serious business. What happens on the streets of our cities is nothing in comparison.
-
From Eric :
"Its also not a stance based on emotion... Opinion is nothing more then a judgement... and there are many facts out there to help in making an informed judegement.... claiming prejudice is also a stretch."
Reference something.
"Yeah thats kinda my point. I guarantee you that the vast majority of those 13 million people are not living under a bridge or inside a crack house."
How many people are living in crack houses Eric ?
You have no clue.
You are just parroting bs that has been brain washed into you. The sad part is that you more or less said that you had no dog in the fight, you don't care.
You're a Brady.
-
My suggestion is that prescription drugs, opiates specifically, cause more harm than any of these street drugs combined.
I agree 100%! Addiction to pain medication has reached epidemic proportions and it spans all social classes and age groups. It's hard to fathom just how many accidents, robberies, etc., are due to the abuse of prescription pain medicine. People make comments about the desperate acts of those addicted to crack, meth, and heroin, but they have nothing on some individuals looking for their next pill fix. I've seen it myself. When it comes right down to it though, these people are predisposed to addiction and would be desperately hooked on something, no matter what. It is my opinion that legalizing drugs would decrease the crime rate, however. Think about it... how many more alcoholics would resort to crime to fund their addiction if beer were $50 a case?
Swoop
-
How many people are living in crack houses Eric ?
You have no clue.
You are just parroting bs that has been brain washed into you. The sad part is that you more or less said that you had no dog in the fight, you don't care.
You're a Brady.
Its a logical conclusion that I've come to of my own free thinking..... Hell, we have one DRTV member who according to him has been addicted to pain killers. Is he a junky who lives in a crack house?
The dog I have in the fight is (as stated earlier) I dont want to live in a society where any and all drugs are legal.
Exit Question: All of you who feel so strongly about the dangers of prescription drugs, are you willing to make those legal to buy at the Quicky Mart as well?
-
Okay, Eric let's take the thought of legalizing this crap a little ways down the road. Do you think anybody gets up in the morning and says, "This looks like a good day to get addicted to something--maybe I'll try meth or crack." Of course not. The addict is always introduced by someone who does have a dog in the fight--namely, a pusher, or a friend who thinks he can become a supplier and get his own crap for less money. Legalize the stuff, and you put the supplier/pusher out of business. Why would a pusher risk his own neck to get others hooked if he isn't going to make any money by supplying drugs? There is only one answer: he won't. So, your arbitrary number of crack heads begins to be reduced by attrition. Certainly, there will be some who try it to see what all the fuss is about and get hooked, but they are society's losers. Make it all legal. Even the pharmaceuticals. Control it, tax it and make some money off of it, but make it legal. Abusers of pharmaceuticals should be able to get their stuff at the 7-11 just like the alcholohics, and we as a society should have the same proscriptions against driving while high that we have against driving drunk.
Submitted by Crusader who is doing his best impersonation of a true Libertarian.
-
Hell, we have one DRTV member who according to him has been addicted to pain killers. Is he a junky who lives in a crack house?
Actually Eric, I said it took me a year to get off the pain killers. We (my family and doctors) knew it was going to be a struggle but in order to control the pain of my injuries, it was a necessary evil. Was I addicted? Probably, but I had the knowledge and the presence of mind (and the support of my family) to control the issue and live with the eventual withdrawl. I took prescribed medications for the pain involved and slowly weaned myself off of the drugs with the help and guidance of my physicians.
I'm only speaking of myself, more than twenty surgeries, four months in the hospital and the pain I'll have for the rest of my life!
Today, I take nothing for my daily discomfort. On occasion, I'll take some ibubrofen for a headache...I flushed hundreds of pain meds after they were no longer needed. There were more than enough folks willing to buy them from me at a considerable profit.
-
The argument that you can just legalize everything and that there will be little to no effect on society is pretty weak.
At the very least it would become alcohol on steroids and have the same effects on society but impact a far greater number of people then just what alcohol does. Prohibition works on a macro level.... even for alcohol (once again, I dont want to make alcohol illegal):
There is evidence that county-level restrictions on alcohol sales lower the rate of alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities. Saffer and Grossman [14; 15], Chaloupka, Saffer and Grossman [2], and Wilkinson [17] control for the proportion of a state's population residing in counties where alcohol sales are prohibited and find a negative impact on state-level motor vehicle fatality rates. Winn and Giacopassi [18] report that Kentucky counties which prohibit alcohol sales have significantly lower alcohol-related motor vehicle accident rates. Using county-level data on the state of Texas, Jewell and Brown [7] find that limitations in the number of licensed alcohol vendors could decrease alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents and fatalities.
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=MWtT0dsl6G1BhvP1qPvFYC1y4M3KrTxQYvq6hy17hqkJNY5znCfW!-2112636755!33515697?docId=5001632746
It would also cost an ass load of money just in increased driving fatalities. The cost savings argument is becoming pretty weak:
In part due to these fatalities and injuries, drunk driving crashes cost us over $114 billion in the year 2000 alone. In today’s dollars, that’s about two-and-a-half times what it cost us to bail out GM.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/drunk-driving-is-the-glass-half-empty/
In 2009 $53 Billion was spent on the war on drugs
http://actionamerica.org/drugs/wodclock.shtml
More figures here:
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
-
This is my final word on the subject, so I'll just lay it all out. People are going to do drugs, prescription or illegal, whether the government condones it or not. Okay, it is possible that there could be a very small increase in the use of the illegal drugs if they were no longer banned. The point is, however, crime involving them would decrease as they would become more affordable for the users. Legalization would also eliminate the heavy financial burden of failed enforcement and imprisonment, as well as provide revenue through taxes. Like I posted before, how many alcoholics would turn to crime (or the previously mention sexual favors) in order to fund their addiction if beer were $50 a case. Eric, by stating that you don't want to make alcohol illegal, you've devalued your argument against other substances. It's either all or none, don't pick and choose what's right and wrong for everyone else based on your own habits. If you like the job the government is doing concerning drugs, feel free to send a check to the DOJ. I, however, would prefer to see my taxes dollars spent in a more manner more beneficial to society.
Swoop
-
Eric, by stating that you don't want to make alcohol illegal, you've devalued your argument against other substances. It's either all or none, don't pick and choose what's right and wrong for everyone else based on your own habits.
Swoop
Come on... you seriously can not be putting heroin/crack/meth on par with beer/liqour ??? ::)
As I stated earlier, I think you can make the case for the legalization of pot. My personal preference would be that it remains illegal and that if someone gets caught with a bag of weed they just write them a ticket and send them on their way.
Pot is not really that big of a deal, and if people want to smoke it I dont really care. All the hard drugs are a very different story.
-
Smoking a joint when I was much younger and knew everything, never made me want to steal my own mothers jewelry and sell it as crack does.
Friends, that just used to take a toke or two, never stole their brothers guns and pawned them for crack, friends I went to elementary school with pulled a knife on me when he thought I "might" take his stash.....(of heroin)...
All BS aside, I grew up in one of the most popular drug capitols of the U.S.A. saw childhood friends end up in prison, lose everything to support their habit, and burn every bridge to get it.
Burn a joint, fine,.. big deal,...I been there done that, and got tired of it...The fly in the vaseline, is the crack, meth, heroin.
My wife's brother was a functional addict of heroin for years, worked for the city of Baltimore, and got a bad batch and died at 37.
A waste of a smart man. It all started firing up a joint in the 70's. Than the chase for the perfect high began.
It was a complete failure, with lethal consequences.
Yes the "War On Drugs" will,.... and will continue to fail, however, I cannot accept a legalization of hardcore drugs.
Just my .02 cents, and humble opinion. I won't BS anyone, (I did inhale, and go down a bad road after my divorce), God, my son, and just being sick and tired of being sick and tired, pulled me out.
and I'm thankful I didn't end up like others I personally knew.
Sorry for the thread drift. But I agree with eric.
-
Come on... you seriously can not be putting heroin/crack/meth on par with beer/liqour ??? ::)
I absolutely do! How many deaths and injuries can be attributed directly to alcohol each year? (Auto accidents, assaults, etc.) I guarantee they are EXPONENTIALLY greater than those attributed to illegal drugs. It's not because of the decreased number of users you think the drug laws maintain, either. Those who are addicted to "hard" drugs, would have taken that path whether or not the substance were legal. The addition of a few, who currently refrain due to legality, would be statistically insignificant. Would we see a decline in suicides if jumping off of a building were made illegal? As I have stated multiple times, alcoholics would also be characterized as criminals like crack heads and their ilk, if alcohol had not been legalized and therefore made readily available and affordable. Some people can drink responsibly without causing harm to those around them. Some cannot. The same could be said for those who choose to use drugs. If our government is going to attempt to protect us from those who would abuse a substance, shouldn't they do it for all substances? I think I have now explained my view point, but my side of the discussion ends here, regardless. Legalization of drugs is a debate much like politics, in that neither side will ever persuade the other to agree.
Swoop
-
Come on... you seriously can not be putting heroin/crack/meth on par with beer/liqour ??? ::)
As I stated earlier, I think you can make the case for the legalization of pot. My personal preference would be that it remains illegal and that if someone gets caught with a bag of weed they just write them a ticket and send them on their way.
Pot is not really that big of a deal, and if people want to smoke it I dont really care. All the hard drugs are a very different story.
You are absolutely right Eric, Tobacco is far more addictive than Heroin and booze accounts for more crimes, violence, and health effects than Coke, heroin and weed combined.