Shotgun

My simple answer is yes; I think all of the currently "scheduled" drugs should be legal (not a crime for most adults to possess any of them, even without a prescription). But my realistic answer? I have no f'n clue how that would actually work. The war on drugs has gone on for so long and gotten so complicated that I don't how we could get ourselves out of such a mess. Though I think we're generally headed in a better direction with marijuana slowly becoming legal. As for who benefits from the "war," no doubt Big Pharm and Big Alcohol are somewhere on the long list. Organized crime is probably at the top of the list. Edit to add: As much as I am against the "War on Drugs," because I believe it does more harm than good, I'm sure there are some real people out there who are benefiting from it. Potential addicts who don't have an affinity for the current legal drugs and who are deterred enough by the illegality of the illegal drugs. I'm sure it is protecting some people, as it advertises, but ultimately I do believe it's at an unacceptable price (the old freedom vs. safety issue).

I don't think so. But most court-ordered treatment is probably due to drunk driving. Edit to add: Which is in line with what he was saying - court-ordered because of a behavior while using the drug but not because of the drug use itself.

Yeah, you're probably right about that.

Ending the "War on Drugs" isn't likely to hurt the treatment industry. Addiction will still be around. I mean, alcohol is probably the top substance that people seek treatment for right now, and it's legal. More legal drugs would likely mean more people seeking treatment, though possibly(?) less who would be court-ordered to treatment.

I'm sure my perception is skewed from reading this forum too much, but I get the impression that a lot of people are way more concerned about guns than they are about driving, which makes no sense to me. I go through most of my days without any thought/fear of guns, yet I have to deal with driving almost every day, and I know that statistically that is where I and my loved ones are most likely to get injured or killed. (Well, some exceptions there for other dangerous activities.) Of course I wish that there was less violence in our country (and in the world), but I don't think guns are the reason for the violence. The worst school massacre in our history was mostly carried out with bombs. And just in the last couple of weeks there has been a murder/suicide carried out with an ax and another carried out with a chainsaw. And countless other violent acts every day that do not involve a gun . . . Yes, guns are often used in violent attacks, but looking at the big picture, it seems to me that we have more of a violence problem than a gun problem. Heck, even traffic accidents - many are caused by aggressive driving and/or a general disregard for others, which seems to be approaching violent behavior.

I don't know. Which disease was it?

Just curious, what do you believe happened to the souls of all the people who lived before Jesus?

Corey, from what little attention I've paid to this story, I'd probably agree with you. It did seem more like the media looking for a story rather than this particular business looking to make a statement. As for the issue, I think it's really hard to have a law that is fair for everyone. For the most part, I think that private (especially non-necessity-type) businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone. Unfortunately, I don't see how to allow that without ending up with certain groups of people being heavily discriminated against. Of course, one of the risks involved when choosing a career or choosing to start a certain kind of business is that things change, and you either need to evolve with the changes or move on. Same-sex marriage is quickly becoming legal throughout our country, and maybe it's time for anyone in a wedding-related business (excluding churches) to realize that they are going to have to provide services without discrimination or get into a different type of business.

Ya, in pizza boxes with bible quotes on them..... I wonder if there's a law against that.... In-N-Out Burger puts bible references on some of their containers. I don't see a problem with it. But I'm still wondering why a pizza joint would be concerned about having to cater a gay wedding - probably not a scenario that comes up too often.

The term "skydiverly" conjures up an image of someone who drinks a lot of beer and moons planes. I'm trying to figure out how that fits into the context of any of these posts.

Well, at least the guy is getting his wish of having his name remembered.

No, it's not a real proposal but only because she understands that it "would never be allowed". I think her comments in this video indicate that the 'proposal' really is in line with what she actually thinks. That kind of reporting drives me nuts. I'd rather hear what the woman is actually saying rather than hearing snippets of what she says mixed in with the reporter's paraphrasing, which gives the impression that they are twisting it for effect. From what little I could find of her actual transcript, it sounds like it was a comment that has been taken out of context. It seems that the context was something to do with "guns don't kill people; people kill people." And she was talking about how there is a corruption of the soul that is leading to a lot of the violence in our country. And (perhaps with different wording), I think most of us would agree that there is a deep issue with violence in our country and that it goes way beyond the simple fact that a lot of people have guns. I don't believe that she actually wants to make church mandatory. I do believe that she thinks religion may be the answer, and I would disagree with her there (though I don't have an answer of my own), but I do think it was just a comment to emphasize her point about guns/violence and that it's been taken out of context and blown out of proportion.

While I'm sure that some people live at home that long, I got the impression that jclalor was making a joke. And, while AZ may be looking at mandatory church attendance, we've got the "Sodomite Suppression Act" going for us here in CA: http://news.yahoo.com/california-acts-against-poll-measure-execute-gays-231339865.html;_ylt=AwrSyCM2zRVVNn8AiYDQtDMD

Yeah, with the news that's coming out, it does sound like mental illness may have been the cause. So far they are reporting that there are no religious/political motivations that would make this a terrorist act. I have a lot of questions, but I'll wait to see what happens with the investigation. No point in speculating about the unknown.

And here I thought people jumping in front of passenger trains, buses or deliberately going in while skydiving were some fucked up ways to off yourself. Taking out 150+ people while you're at it though... that takes the biscuit. Yes, that puts it into the category of mass murder via "suicide attack." If it does turn out to be certain that it was intentional, I doubt that suicide was his only intention.