|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 28, 2011 23:06:55 GMT -5
Your questions are stupid, I will ignore them. WADR, that's not how the direct question rule works. He acknowledged the question and stated he would not answer. Which is perfectly acceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 28, 2011 23:27:46 GMT -5
By that logic, nobody should drive, either, because your car produces a shit-ton more pollutants and harmful chemicals than my one cigarette every four hours. Let me know when you need to drive a cigarette to work. I don't, but you can walk or ride a bicycle to work. You don't "need" a car. |
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 28, 2011 23:28:47 GMT -5
Those who wish to take drugs will always insist that the act of taking drugs has no effect on anyone but themselves. [etc. cut for space] Wouldn't all of that also apply to alcohol though? It does, which makes the hypocrisy all the more awful. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 28, 2011 23:29:10 GMT -5
What if you live 20 miles away from your place of employment?
Not everyone is in a situation where they can use a one-size fits all solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 28, 2011 23:29:23 GMT -5
WADR, that's not how the direct question rule works. He acknowledged the question and stated he would not answer. Which is perfectly acceptable. The questions were directed specifically at Shane, and as she has neither answered nor acknowledged them, she is in violation of the Direct Question rule. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 28, 2011 23:29:49 GMT -5
She specifically stated she has left the thread and has not returned. You fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 28, 2011 23:30:02 GMT -5
What if you live 20 miles away from your place of employment? Not everyone is in a situation where they can use a one-size fits all solution. And people routinely bike that far for work. A car is not necessary for an able-bodied adult. |
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 28, 2011 23:31:13 GMT -5
She specifically stated she has left the thread and has not returned. You fail. Please quote that post, otherwise I shall be forced to conclude that you are lying. |
|
|
|
Post by sugarfreejazz on May 28, 2011 23:32:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 28, 2011 23:32:57 GMT -5
Shane, WHAT EVIDENCE? YOU HAVE NONE! So put up, or STFU, already! I'm done with you. Clearly you can't read or have the memory of a goldfish. You want to continue your little BS hissy fit about this, then make another thread. You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist with your BS "follow the money and you'll get the truth" line. Too much Conspiracy Theorist Channel (aka History Channel)? There ya go, Kitty. Read moar. |
|
|
|
Post by sugarfreejazz on May 28, 2011 23:34:35 GMT -5
Kitty don't you receive government aid? I'd like my question answered if possible, for clarification purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on May 28, 2011 23:35:02 GMT -5
And people routinely bike that far for work. A car is not necessary for an able-bodied adult. I present you with the state of Michigan, Detroit Metropolitan Area, in the winter time. Sub zero temps, no public transit system, inches upon inches of snow. You can bicycle to work. It is neither practical, safe, or advisable. But you can. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on May 29, 2011 0:40:31 GMT -5
Hey WMDKitty, I wouldn't mind this question getting answered: How the fuck does the legality or illegality of marijuana or other intoxicants relate to the reasonableness and constitutionality of a good faith search of an incorrect apartment during a hot pursuit chase of a lawful suspect? If they had been chasing a murderer and found evidence of a kidnapper, chasing a rapist and found a thief, or chasing a pimp and found a black market beagle smuggling ring, the constitutional question would still be the same. It happened to be drug offenses. |
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on May 29, 2011 0:44:43 GMT -5
If someone smoked legal cigarettes in a different apartment, that could flare up asthma as well. But if nobody actually speaks up and says something about it, how can you expect the smoker to read minds and change his/her behavior. FFS, if you don't do anything to make smokers aware of the problem(pot or not), you shouldn't blame them. Now if they keep smoking after you post a note or tell them, then yes, they're assholes.
Drug use only has the *potential* to create victims, but it doesn't automatically cause victims on its own. If you include every possible way they could make a victim, you might as well add loud music(annoy your neighbors), baseballs (they break windows), meat (for the amount of resources it uses vs. vegetables), and barbecues(they could burn down your house). Each individual drug may have a different risk level (pot = almost nonexistent, meth/heroin = extremely high), but the real question should be: Does the law create more harm than the drugs themselves? Putting someone in jail and giving them a criminal record, making them unemployable when they get out just makes things much worse for all but the most absolute hardcore of addicts. And even those would be better served by some form of treatment if they haven't committed any crimes other than just having the drug.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 29, 2011 1:15:25 GMT -5
Let me know when you need to drive a cigarette to work. I don't, but you can walk or ride a bicycle to work. You don't "need" a car. How far do you consider work beyond car? Oh, let me guess, "You can just move closer" or "find another job". Seriously, just shut the fuck up. Your questions are useless side tracks, your points are idiotic, and your blame shifting is patheitic BTW, I love how you try using the "direct question rule" to somehow win the issue or declare some pointless victory while completely ignoring it yourself. Honestly, there's times I believe you are a decent human being, but there seems to be many more you come off as a ranting c**t for no other reason than "I'm a special snowflake" |
|
