Posts by Es99


log in
41) Message boards : Politics : I hope that this cop gets to feel the full force of the law. (Message 1587243)
Posted 10 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
How a SWAT Team Upended My Baby’s Life — and Got Away with It
42) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Happy Thanks giving Day Canada! (Message 1586903)
Posted 10 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
We had pumpkin pie.
43) Message boards : Politics : Cannabis use & Smoking (Message 1586668)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
After you have read these http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=double+blind+Cannabinoids+study&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1 then maybe you will have enough knowledge to comment in this thread. Otherwise all I see here is reefer madness.

As to use, I'm Libertarian. Let them smoke, or use anything else. Just comes with a couple of catches. First you get a users card which you have to show to buy and the purchase is recorded. Second that users card is a DNR order. Third that card in an organ donor card, if a Doctor thinks any part of you isn't too drug addled to be of use to another, they cut it out. Fourth, you can't refuse a blood test if you are ever given a traffic ticket or involved in a motor vehicle accident. Fifth, if you have a drivers license, you are required to carry 5 times the regular liability and your insurance company has to have a users endorsement. Oh, don't get caught using and not have a card.

Well there is a version of "libertarian" I've never come across.

I assume that all people who use alcohol should undergo the same measures?

You link to articles that show how canaboids can help sick people then in the next paragraph you demand that these sick people have to carry a DNR order.

Why not just make them wear a yellow star and have done with it?
44) Message boards : Politics : Cannabis use & Smoking (Message 1586638)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
I'm a smoker, yet have never smoked in anyone else's vehicle or homes, even though several are smokers themselves. It's principals. Something I've not seen potheads have.

Agree...

As I have said before. There is a part of the Left Wing Pot Smoking Culture, who relishes blowing Pot Smoke in other peoples faces.

They are hiding their disgusting and self-centered actions, by calling it Social Protest.

Typical of them.

More sweeping generalisations.
45) Message boards : Politics : Chimps... Are they people too? (Message 1586572)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
The question wasn't about making a chimp subject to human law. It was about giving it human rights.
46) Message boards : Politics : Cannabis use & Smoking (Message 1586571)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor

Which again, is why you decriminalize it. And why keep the stigma? Because its bad for you. Again, the science is pretty clear on that.

Did you even read my post.

Its not that clear...and it is starting to look like the benefits outweigh the risks.


Honestly we have banned things for less. Do you really want to tell people its safe to use a substance that has been linked to increased risk of psychosis, cognitive impairment, birth failures and is also addictive?

ffs, will you just read the damn article? None of these risks have been proven.

Yeah sure, the evidence isn't a 100% conclusive, but that cuts both ways. Its also far from proven to be safe for use, and even when its inconclusive it hardly paints a very nice picture of cannabis.

But hey, lets just assume its safe.

I know lots of people who have been life long users of cannabis and suffered no long term ill effects. I know lots and lots of people who have suffered terrible effects from the use of alcohol. There is no reason to stigmatise people for doing something that is relatively harmless when used in a sensible way.

On top of that, this is only cannabis, which okay, might not be that bad (but still bad). But you are talking about legalizing all drugs, including the stuff like crack, heroin, cocaine and meth. And be honest there, those things are not like cannabis. That stuff is just plain bad for you. The science on that is clear.

Agreed, they are actually bad. However, I do not think that making them illegal is helping. In fact it is making the problem worse.



That is a very positive assumption, and one I can assure you that is also never going to happen. The simple fact is that a legalized drug trade would also be a heavily regulated drug trade. Exactly because legal drug dealers can't sell their drugs at school there will still be illegal drug dealers who break the law so they can sell their poison at schools. Legalizing the drug trade will not solve this.

They will be very little profit in getting people addicted to a drug that they will be able to by legally. If these dealers are out of business then I don't they will be selling the drugs at schools.

And there is proof for this. Take a look at the US gun market. Guns are legally sold there to the public, but this is a controlled market. Legal gun dealers cannot sell to just anyone and they can't just sell everything. So what do we see? Right, an black market for guns that sells to customers who can't get what they want in the legal market.

Guns are not addictive and actual gun ownership in the US has actually decreased. Only a few die hard nut jobs are determined to own a gun.


The amount of heroin being produced simply does not back this statement up.

Well clearly it does given that there are now more addicts than before. Unless you are suggesting that the system is counting people as heroin addicts when they in fact are not addicted to heroin.

Any person who uses heroin more than a few times ends up physically addicted. So considering how the production and sales of heroin have rocketed since it was made illegal I'd say that policy has been a catastrophic failure.



I'm not the one suggesting to put relapse triggers everywhere for people with a history of hard drug abuse.

Yeah..you lost me.



I wasn't talking about marijuana, I was talking about hard drugs. Again, you are the one that suggested to legalize all drugs, not just marijuana.

So you agree that marijuana is not particularly addictive?

Besides, I know more people that can handle their alcohol well, while I know almost no one who handles his weed well. If weed is such a safe drug, then why are, of the handful of people I know who use it, nearly all of them addicts


That says more about your social circle than anything.

while of the much larger group of people I know who drink alcohol, maybe 1 can be said to have a potential drinking issue? Statistically this shouldn't be. Not to these extremes.

I know a large amount of people that smoke weed and a large amount of people that drink. I'd definitely say that alcohol is a bigger problem for people.


You know thats not a reason to just legalize it. Technically making some form of behavior illegal has never stopped anyone from still doing it. Murder is illegal, but people still do kill each other. Rape is illegal, but it happens all the time. Driving past the speed limit is illegal, but plenty of people still do it. So I guess then that according to your logic, we should just legalize all those things as well?

Are you suggesting that you would go around murdering and raping people if it weren't illegal? Not sure what point you are making here and if it reflects well on you.

The thing with alcohol and fast food is that the flood gates for those things have already been opened and they have been opened for decades or in the case of alcohol, centuries. The flood gates for illegal drugs have so far been kept close, but once you start legalizing the whole thing, you will open them and we will never be able to close them again.

You are in such denial if you don't understand that those gates are already open. I applaud you for the sheltered life you have led.
47) Message boards : Politics : Cannabis use & Smoking (Message 1586528)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
This thread will be saved for posterity, and the higher authorites at Berkeley University.

California's Medical Marijuana Program


Please continue. This thread is full of support of non medical use, and that is a crime in most nations. I don't give a flying F if it's socially acceptable, it is still a crime. Would you support murder too, if that became socially acceptable? (It is socially acceptable in Syria and Iraq)

But by all means, don't be responsible, and law abiding. All eventual respect I had for you is totally gone. You don't care about that either, so please continue spreading the news about the wonderful pot, even though recreational use is illegal, criminal. For all I care pot heads should be thrown in jail.

This thread will go to the history as the most irresponsible, not at all moderated thread. Seems as if all mods nowadays supports pot heads.

This is an American forum on American servers in the state of California and as such is subject to their laws.

Freedom of speech is enshrined in the American constitution, so a healthy discussion on the pros and cons of marijuana is not illegal.

I am quite sure that the mods will step in should anyone here do anything that is actually illegal, such as trying to sell pot via the forum.

And BTW, no I am not a feminist any longer. You took that right out of me.

Fortunately for me (and thanks to feminism) I don't need your approval to have an opinion. That your "feminism" was conditional on that, shows that you really, never were one.


Since I've had it with your style, I'm going to block you so I don't need to have a raised heart rate every time I see one of your posts. Mod or not, you're blocked.

Well thank goodness for that.
48) Message boards : Politics : Cannabis use & Smoking (Message 1586524)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
This thread will be saved for posterity, and the higher authorites at Berkeley University.

California's Medical Marijuana Program


Please continue. This thread is full of support of non medical use, and that is a crime in most nations. I don't give a flying F if it's socially acceptable, it is still a crime. Would you support murder too, if that became socially acceptable? (It is socially acceptable in Syria and Iraq)

But by all means, don't be responsible, and law abiding. All eventual respect I had for you is totally gone. You don't care about that either, so please continue spreading the news about the wonderful pot, even though recreational use is illegal, criminal. For all I care pot heads should be thrown in jail.

This thread will go to the history as the most irresponsible, not at all moderated thread. Seems as if all mods nowadays supports pot heads.

This is an American forum on American servers in the state of California and as such is subject to their laws.

Freedom of speech is enshrined in the American constitution, so a healthy discussion on the pros and cons of marijuana is not illegal.

I am quite sure that the mods will step in should anyone here do anything that is actually illegal, such as trying to sell pot via the forum.

And BTW, no I am not a feminist any longer. You took that right out of me.

Fortunately for me (and thanks to feminism) I don't need your approval to have an opinion. That your "feminism" was conditional on that, shows that you really, never were one.
49) Message boards : Politics : Cannabis use & Smoking (Message 1586513)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
Cannabis use is criminal.

Not where I live, you are guilty of making a sweeping over generalization.

...and here the mounties aren't allowed to smoke it while in uniform.

Mountie says he has 'legal right' to smoke medical marijuana in uniform

He has the 'Right' to take any Prescribed Drug, which may impair his judgment, while working?

Apparently he believes he has No Judgment to Impair. I agree.

I don't think many people think he was right.

What is telling is that he was a mountie who could legally use marijuana as long as he was not on duty.
50) Message boards : Politics : Cannabis use & Smoking (Message 1586509)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
Cannabis use is criminal.

Not where I live, you are guilty of making a sweeping over generalization.

...and here the mounties aren't allowed to smoke it while in uniform.

Mountie says he has 'legal right' to smoke medical marijuana in uniform

That is a rather sad reference Es.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/06/ron-francis-pot-smoking-mountie-who-suffered-from-ptsd-found-dead/

Yes, I know. PTSD is a very difficult. I think having his uniform taken away was the final straw.
51) Message boards : Politics : Cannabis use & Smoking (Message 1586506)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
This thread will be saved for posterity, and the higher authorites at Berkeley University.

California's Medical Marijuana Program
52) Message boards : Politics : Cannabis use & Smoking (Message 1586504)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
However, there are some who need marijuana to reduce their anxiety levels down to what we could call normal. People who suffer PTSD might fall under this category.

I am pretty convinced that the benefits outweigh the harm. Water can cause harm if you drink enough of it. I have no idea why it needs to be excused. As long as no one is forcing you to partake then what do you care?

I am quite happy to accept that there are many legitimate medical uses for Cannabis, which are proven to be efficacious, and these are readily documented elsewhere. Recreational Cannabis users do tend to be rather self righteous about their use of it as far as I can see, and don't like being seen as drug users, which in fact they are. I don't care at all if others use it, their choice, as is mine not to. I might think they are foolish, but there you are.

(and quite honestly you might benefit from a little once in a while)

ROTFLMAO, that has just got to be one of your classic comments of all time :-))) If you think for one teeny weeny moment that I would ever poke my nose into this cesspool of a Politics forum without being in full 100% possession of all my faculties, then you are rather sadly mistaken. Rattling ones cage are we?


Not at all. It was just an observation.

Oh my word, that has quite made my evening. And as to that I am about to open a bottle of a rather nice red wine that a friend gave me for mending his computer. Cheers Es :-)

Enjoy your drug of choice.
53) Message boards : Politics : Cannabis use & Smoking (Message 1586503)
Posted 11 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
Cannabis use is criminal.

Not where I live, you are guilty of making a sweeping over generalization.

...and here the mounties aren't allowed to smoke it while in uniform.

Mountie says he has 'legal right' to smoke medical marijuana in uniform
54) Message boards : Politics : Cannabis use & Smoking (Message 1586413)
Posted 12 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
A good balanced post Es, but can I make some observations please.

Cannabis users are much like Linux users, they will defend their corner for their niche activity come what may. The basis seems to be that Cannabis use causes less harm than smoking cigarettes or alcohol, so why are they being unfairly victimised?

[quote]Conclusion. Don't smoke weed and drive.

The point is that smoking pot causes harm. How much harm compared to other drugs is purely academic, it still causes harm, and is not a valid reason to excuse it.


I am pretty convinced that the benefits outweigh the harm. Water can cause harm if you drink enough of it. I have no idea why it needs to be excused. As long as no one is forcing you to partake (and quite honestly you might benefit from a little once in a while) then what do you care?


It is also important to note that society's views have changed in the 21C. Smoking cigarettes is now generally considered to be anti-social, and the areas outside the back of offices are colloquially called "Pariahs Corner" or some such term. Workers skulk there like some sort of secondary life form.

The data is pretty conclusive about the dangers of secondary smoking. Cigarette smoke has far more dangerous chemicals than cannabis smoke. Personally I wouldn't recommend heave smoking of anything for the sake of the lungs. However, such things as vapourisers are available now that can reduce the harm from smoking marijuana. However, vapourising tobacco weed would still expose you to the other nasty things in it, such as arsenic.

Whereas, Cannabis use seems to have become quite socially acceptable, with many people quite happily admitting that they use it without any stigma attached. Perhaps the world should have a think about the pressures of modern life in the 21C, and investigate why so many people feel the need to constantly de-stress, using either Cannabis or alcohol to achieve that.

People have always done so. Some people need to do so much more than others. Me, I have no particular need to partake of any drug, be it alcohol or anything. I do sometimes because the odd social drink can be pleasant. However, there are some who need marijuana to reduce their anxiety levels down to what we could call normal. People who suffer PTSD might fall under this category.

As a social drug it is far better than alcohol for reasons I think Clyde has already pointed out. You are very unlikely to go home and beat your wife after a night out smoking weed. As a pain reliever it has far less side effects and is far less addictive than many over the counter pain relief medications. It is safer to have in your home than aspirin or paracetamol (acetaminophen). It is an excellent aid for people with insomnia as it is possible to get indica strains rather than sativa strains from the medical dispensary.
55) Message boards : Politics : Cannabis use & Smoking (Message 1586372)
Posted 12 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
It is clear to me that you are the one that is naive if you really are so totally unaware how easy it is to get hold of pot. Both when I was in London it was ridiculously easy and here it is even easier, mostly because Vancouver is world renowned for the quality of the pot grown here. Its won awards.

Again, which is why you decriminalize it. Possession, use and sale become legal, but you keep the stigma and you keep prices inflated because production remains illegal. You can still control the quality of the weed but at the same time you can go after people who produce it. It works in the Netherlands, why wouldnt it work elsewhere?

The real question is why are you so keen on keeping the stigma? I am still not convinced that the risks of marijuana are enough that we need to stigmatise it...and as Julie has pointed out, making something illegal actually increases its attractiveness to teens.

The data is simply not in about the long term effects of pot use, mainly because most people don't go around admitting that they smoke it on a regular basis.

Oh no? What was the study Chris posted at the start of thread? I think that if you follow people around for 20 years you get a pretty good idea of what the long term effects are. I'm sorry, but now you are just flat out denying scientific data because its telling you something you don't like.


You mean this paper? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12703/full

The key conclusions from the report, published today in the journal Addiction, are:

* Driving while intoxicated with cannabis doubles the risk of road traffic accidents. In comparison, being intoxicated with alcohol increased the risk of a crash 6-15 times.

Hmmm...already discussed in this thread. The risks are still less than texting while driving and comparable to having a small child in your car.

Conclusion. Don't smoke weed and drive.

* Approximately 9 percent of people who have ever used cannabis become dependent, compared to 32 percent for nicotine, 23 percent for heroin, and 15 percent for alcohol.
32 % for nicotine? Yet its still legal?
15% for alcohol?
Yet cannabis is the problem here?

As to decriminalisation, it seems that these addiction rates are the same in the Netherlands: " In 2011 cannabis was the primary drug problem for 48% of individuals entering drug treatment, and for 58% of new treatment entrants in the Netherlands."

* Maternal cannabis use during pregnancy modestly reduces birth weight.

"These studies have a number of limitations. First, self-reported rates of cannabis use during pregnancy are typically low (2–6%). Studies that have measured cannabis use using urinalyses suggest that there is considerable under-reporting of use, which probably attenuates associations between cannabis use and poor birth outcomes. Secondly, it has often been difficult to fully adjust for the effects of major confounders such as cigarette smoking in analyses of the effects of cannabis use on birth weight. "

So not particularly conclusive then.

* Daily cannabis users double their risk of experiencing psychotic symptoms and disorders, especially if they have a personal or family history of psychosis, and if they start using cannabis in their mid-teens

"it is difficult to decide whether cannabis use has had any effects on psychosis incidence, because even if the relationship were causal, cannabis use would produce a very modest increase in incidence. The detection of any such increases is complicated by changes in diagnostic criteria and psychiatric services for psychosis, the poor quality of administrative data on the treated cases of psychosis, and possibly by social improvements (e.g. in antenatal care) that may have reduced incidence of psychosis during the period in which cannabis use increased."

The study still has not concluded whether the correlation between cannabis use is causal, or if it is because people with schizophrenic tendencies are self medicating. There is an argument to be made that if they are self medicating then they are not getting the actual help they need. The causal link, however, has not been conclusively proven.

"Researchers who remain sceptical about a casual explanation often argue that a causal hypothesis is inconsistent with the absence of any increase in the incidence of schizophrenia, as cannabis use has increased among young adults. There is mixed evidence on trends in schizophrenia incidence. An Australian modelling study did not find any increased psychosis incidence after steep increases in cannabis use during the 1980s and 1990s [98], but a similar British modelling study [99] argued that it was too early to detect any increase in psychosis incidence in Britain. Two case register studies in Britain [100] and Switzerland [101] reported an increased incidence of psychoses in recent birth cohorts, but a British study of people treated for schizophrenia in general practice failed to do so [90]."



* Daily cannabis use that begins in adolescence and continues through adulthood appears linked to cognitive impairment, but the mechanism and whether this is reversible remains unclear.


The evidence is still not in on this one (according to this report. If we are going to play it safe with our young people then we probably want to legalise it to help keep it out of their hands.

* People who smoke cannabis daily as teenagers are more likely to use other illicit drugs, but some evidence suggests the relationship may be due to shared risk factors.

These risk factors are: " (i) that cannabis users have more opportunities to use other illicit drugs because these are supplied by the same black market as cannabis; (ii) that early cannabis users were more likely to use other illicit drugs for reasons that are unrelated to their cannabis use (e.g. risk-taking or sensation-seeking); and (iii) that the pharmacological effects of cannabis increased a young person's propensity to use other illicit drugs"
The report found no conclusive evidence for number (iii)



* Smoking cannabis increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, mainly because most cannabis users have smoked, or still smoke tobacco as well.


So smoking it seems to be the problem, If it is legal there may be other alternatives, such as edibles.

To sum up. Read the report, not the newspaper summaries. I stand by my argument that all the data is not yet in. As supported by the (actual) report that Chris posted at the beginning of this thread.


As to your concern over the addiction of other, more harmful drugs. I worked for the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator for a while and go to read quite a few reports on it. The one that did it for me was the one that pointed out that before Heroin was criminalised there were around 60 registered addicts in the whole UK. That number soared once it was was made illegal.

I'm sorry but what? So basically you are claiming that if you make a drug illegal, its addictiveness increases? Thats not how chemistry works. The chemical properties of heroin do not change depending on whether its legal or illegal to use it.

I'm sorry that you don't understand how addiction works. To get addicted to something you have to be exposed to it. Drug dealers use many methods to get their client to try the drugs. I am pretty sure that if drugs are legal and regulated giving out free samples at the school gates would not be allowed...and if the legal trade drives the illegal trade out of business then this won't be happening.

My bet is that the reason that number changed is that because it was legal before, people were still addicted but no one cared if you were. The police didn't catch you and it was pretty easy for those people to stay outside the system or at least keep their addiction outside the system.

That may or may not be true. I think it is unlikely because when something is not illegal people are MORE likely to seek help, not LESS likely. There is simply a greater supply of these drugs than there ever has been. They have to be going somewhere. It was not the multibillion industry then that it is today.

Now when the heroin is made illegal suddenly you get the police who starts to arrest people over heroin possession, they end up in the system and therefor in the official statistics. Statistically it seems like there is an increase, but in reality that increase is simply the result because you started counting differently and not that there are actually any more or less addicts than before.

The amount of heroin being produced simply does not back this statement up.


Make all drugs legal. Educated people on the risks of the harmful ones and give them access to treatment.

Yeah I don't think you understand how addiction works if you think its just a matter of giving them treatment and then its magically gone. Addiction is for life, you can get clean, but after that there is the life long battle against relapse. And the best way to avoid a relapse is to remove or avoid relapse triggers. Now what do you think would happen to an addict when he can buy cocaine in the local super market? Or in a specialized drug store on the corner of the street? That are relapse triggers. You are not making it easy for people to get clean and stay clean if they are literally surrounded by relapse triggers.

There are so many assumptions about what you think I understand here that I'm not going to bother answering.

And not just that, we are talking about drugs now that are far more addictive than alcohol and also far more disruptive to ones mental state.


It is clear that you do not understand the addictive nature and health problems associated with alcohol use, which every scientist will tell you is a far worse drug than marijuana.

If you think there is actual hard evidence that pot is more dangerous than eating a high fat diet, post it here.

Well I suggest you read the study Chris linked in the OP.

I suggest you do. It is clear you did not.

From what I gather its about as dangerous as a high fat diet, maybe a bit more. "But then why aren't we banning a high fat diet as well!" you would respond if this wasn't such an obvious ploy. "And why aren't we banning alcohol and all those other things that are as dangerous or more dangerous than pot".

Why not? Perhaps because when you are pushing a product that is addictive it is impossible to stop its use by making it illegal?

Well that is idiot logic. Just because we have legalized A which is dangerous, but not B which is still dangerous but just less dangerous than A doesn't mean we should either ban A or legalize B. B remains dangerous, so why would you legalize it? And why ban A? Well there might be practical concerns against it. In the case of alcohol you can't, its just not possible. In the case of unhealthy food, well, again its pretty much impossible. No one would accept the government banning their favorite meal, the fast food industry would lobby it so hard it would never become a law and there are of course also the practical concerns of defining what unhealthy food actually is. What has been done though (and I support this) is banning certain ingredients that make food unhealthy. Trans-fats for example.

As it also quite obvious, banning illegal drugs is also impossible. They are addictive and so the demand, once created, is self sustaining.
56) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Raccoon Update XX - All are welcome in the Critter Cafe (Message 1585988)
Posted 12 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
So the cure to moths is raccoons? *makes notes* :)


Maybe a cheaper way is to have three old ladies as paying guests, since apparently they all smell of moth balls :-)))

@Vic - never mind the fish, you'd be better off saving your money for this house you want to get that you've been posting pictures about.

I know, the fish are a long term project, the house might never be affordable by Me cause of My income level(or the lack), so I might be stuck here, then the only way out of here is when My Sister in law croaks...

Its good to have a dream (about the house I mean, not your sister in law dying)
57) Message boards : Politics : Hospitals (Message 1585987)
Posted 12 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
Definitely think union leaders should be prosecuted...




???

I'd like to take this moment to deeply thank my union who, even as I type this, are going to make sure I get the days pay that I should of got paid to me, but my employers tried to get out of paying.

I'd like to thank them for taking a stand to protect my working conditions.

Thank you Unions. Where would I be without you? Well, there would be no weekends, not minimum pay, no safety protection from unscrupulous employers, no equal pay, no breaks and no protection from being fired on a whim.

Thank you unions.

No denying that, especially coming from me, a dedicated ex-ASLEF steward. My point was: -

After 30 years? Why now with a deadly disease on the rampage? No common sense!

Oh, also tomorrow, over 100 Military drivers are covering London Ambulance. Hmm, seems the "great unwashed" in the forces have their usage after all!
Unions are not allowed in the forces, is that why I wonder?

Deadly disease on the rampage?? Tell me more. I was not aware that Britain was in the grip of a deadly disease! I am sorry. I had not known this.

However, even so "Services could be disrupted although urgent and emergency care - including maternity units - are not being targeted."

So it is not going to effect emergency services.

They are asking for a mere 1% pay rise. That isn't even above inflation.
58) Message boards : Politics : Hospitals (Message 1585975)
Posted 12 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
Definitely think union leaders should be prosecuted...




???

I'd like to take this moment to deeply thank my union who, even as I type this, are going to make sure I get the days pay that I should of got paid to me, but my employers tried to get out of paying.

I'd like to thank them for taking a stand to protect my working conditions.

Thank you Unions. Where would I be without you? Well, there would be no weekends, not minimum pay, no safety protection from unscrupulous employers, no equal pay, no breaks and no protection from being fired on a whim.

Thank you unions.
59) Message boards : Politics : Chimps... Are they people too? (Message 1585973)
Posted 12 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
Tommy presently is kept alone in a cage in a warehouse in Gloversville, New York. Eventually, hope his advocates, he will be moved to a sanctuary and into the history books as the first nonhuman animal person, possessing rights previously restricted to Homo sapiens.

I will repeat.

Chimps are not people, but in this case simple animal welfare should be taken into consideration.

I will repeat too!

Any living creature with self awareness and the ability to communicate is as much a person as you or I am.

Animal welfare should always be taken into consideration as we should consider ourselves the stewards of this planet, not the masters.
60) Message boards : Politics : Cannabis use & Smoking (Message 1585972)
Posted 12 days ago by Profile Es99Project donor
Gang violence does not occur over weed, thats mostly stuff like crack. And you gang violence is far more the result of the poverty and lack of economic and social opportunities in a number of poor neighborhoods than it is over the US's drug policy.


Mikey,

Please stop speaking out of your behind. You don't know what you are talking about here.

Gang violence DOES occur over weed.
Gang violence is NOT confined to... poor neighborhoods.

A place I used to live about 20 years or so ago. A solid middle-class apartment complex in a solid middle-class suburb of Dallas. Two rival gangs of weed sellers had a turf war. And by 'war', I MEAN *WAR*.

1 apartment building (4 units) burned to the ground.
2 apartment buildings (8 units) damaged by fire.
12 vehicles torched and burned.
A good friend of mine (a co-worker) killed by a stray bullet.
A child in the complex killed by a stray bullet.
My cat killed by a stray bullet.

Everything was fine when I left for work that evening (I worked the night shift then).
I returned home to a war zone the next morning.

I moved as soon as possible.

+1 from the Barrio in East Los Angeles where there is less gang violence than the upscale million dollar mansions of Pasadena.

Of course he needs to talk about the violence in South and Central America and Mexico too. I hear London has its problems. Then there are the gangs like ISIL.

+2

gangs such as ISIL are often funded by the illegal drugs trade, and that includes marijuana. I'd rather see it taxed and profits going to schools and drug treatment.


Previous 20 · Next 20

Copyright © 2014 University of California