There are 127 comments.

1. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   11:12 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 12, 2022

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):
   Even at that level, I don’t see it being reasonable to compare a legal dose of morphine – or heroin, or crack, or meth, etc – to a bottle of wine.

   You aren’t refuting his point about the economics and the probable social situation that would result.

   Actually, I think I am. For one thing, drinking wine tends to make people sleepy and stuff. Crack, heroin, meth, etc, don’t.

   You should watch the discovery channel documentaries on the vertical drug trade. All of these areas are just bombed out wastelands. You would have to limit it to that.

   And you think that would be LESS expensive, etc?

2. Member
   RufusRJones

   @RufusRJones

   11:19 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 12, 2022

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):
   Even at that level, I don’t see it being reasonable to compare a legal dose of morphine – or heroin, or crack, or meth, etc – to a bottle of wine.

   You aren’t refuting his point about the economics and the probable social situation that would result.

   Actually, I think I am. For one thing, drinking wine tends to make people sleepy and stuff. Crack, heroin, meth, etc, don’t.

   You should watch the discovery channel documentaries on the vertical drug trade. All of these areas are just bombed out wastelands. You would have to limit it to that.

   And you think that would be LESS expensive, etc?

   Are you going to make me repeat some thing that I have already been moderated for? Duh. It’s like you’re not even reading whatI have said already. You have to follow along or you can’t do this over the Internet. 

   Now try real hard. What do you think my response is going to be? It has already been mentioned multiple times. 

    

3. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   11:25 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 12, 2022

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):
   Even at that level, I don’t see it being reasonable to compare a legal dose of morphine – or heroin, or crack, or meth, etc – to a bottle of wine.

   You aren’t refuting his point about the economics and the probable social situation that would result.

   Actually, I think I am. For one thing, drinking wine tends to make people sleepy and stuff. Crack, heroin, meth, etc, don’t.

   You should watch the discovery channel documentaries on the vertical drug trade. All of these areas are just bombed out wastelands. You would have to limit it to that.

   And you think that would be LESS expensive, etc?

   Are you going to make me repeat some thing that I have already been moderated for? Duh. It’s like you’re not even reading whatI have said already. You have to follow along or you can’t do this over the Internet.

   Now try real hard. What do you think my response is going to be? It has already been mentioned multiple times.

    

   Maybe you should give up because it’s too late, as you keep saying.

4. Member
   RufusRJones

   @RufusRJones

   11:28 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 12, 2022

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):
   Even at that level, I don’t see it being reasonable to compare a legal dose of morphine – or heroin, or crack, or meth, etc – to a bottle of wine.

   You aren’t refuting his point about the economics and the probable social situation that would result.

   Actually, I think I am. For one thing, drinking wine tends to make people sleepy and stuff. Crack, heroin, meth, etc, don’t.

   You should watch the discovery channel documentaries on the vertical drug trade. All of these areas are just bombed out wastelands. You would have to limit it to that.

   And you think that would be LESS expensive, etc?

   Are you going to make me repeat some thing that I have already been moderated for? Duh. It’s like you’re not even reading whatI have said already. You have to follow along or you can’t do this over the Internet.

   Now try real hard. What do you think my response is going to be? It has already been mentioned multiple times.

    

   Maybe you should give up because it’s too late, as you keep saying.

   There is no way in hell the Buckley plan is worse than what we have going on with the Mexican cartels. 

   Now what are you going to say to increase the illumination of this topic?

5. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   11:32 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 12, 2022

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):
   Even at that level, I don’t see it being reasonable to compare a legal dose of morphine – or heroin, or crack, or meth, etc – to a bottle of wine.

   You aren’t refuting his point about the economics and the probable social situation that would result.

   Actually, I think I am. For one thing, drinking wine tends to make people sleepy and stuff. Crack, heroin, meth, etc, don’t.

   You should watch the discovery channel documentaries on the vertical drug trade. All of these areas are just bombed out wastelands. You would have to limit it to that.

   And you think that would be LESS expensive, etc?

   Are you going to make me repeat some thing that I have already been moderated for? Duh. It’s like you’re not even reading whatI have said already. You have to follow along or you can’t do this over the Internet.

   Now try real hard. What do you think my response is going to be? It has already been mentioned multiple times.

    

   Maybe you should give up because it’s too late, as you keep saying.

   There is no way in hell the Buckley plan is worse than what we have going on with the Mexican cartels.

   Now what are you going to say to increase the illumination of this topic?

   I’m going to agree with you that it’s too late, so therefore there’s no reason to discuss it.

6. Member
   RufusRJones

   @RufusRJones

   11:37 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 12, 2022

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   RufusRJones (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):
   Even at that level, I don’t see it being reasonable to compare a legal dose of morphine – or heroin, or crack, or meth, etc – to a bottle of wine.

   You aren’t refuting his point about the economics and the probable social situation that would result.

   Actually, I think I am. For one thing, drinking wine tends to make people sleepy and stuff. Crack, heroin, meth, etc, don’t.

   You should watch the discovery channel documentaries on the vertical drug trade. All of these areas are just bombed out wastelands. You would have to limit it to that.

   And you think that would be LESS expensive, etc?

   Are you going to make me repeat some thing that I have already been moderated for? Duh. It’s like you’re not even reading whatI have said already. You have to follow along or you can’t do this over the Internet.

   Now try real hard. What do you think my response is going to be? It has already been mentioned multiple times.

    

   Maybe you should give up because it’s too late, as you keep saying.

   There is no way in hell the Buckley plan is worse than what we have going on with the Mexican cartels.

   Now what are you going to say to increase the illumination of this topic?

   I’m going to agree with you that it’s too late, so therefore there’s no reason to discuss it.

   Well how many posts ago did I already make that clear? A million? Your argument is poor so you start using ridiculous rhetoric.

7. Coolidge
   Taras

   @Taras

   2:39 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 12, 2022

   @kedavis — I assumed most people knew this already:

   “People who use heroin typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a ‘rush.’ … After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours …”

   https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-are-immediate-short-term-effects-heroin-use

   Heroin and morphine users get violent only when they don’t have their favorite drug.

8. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   2:41 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 12, 2022

   Taras (View Comment):

   @ kedavis — I assumed most people knew this already:

   “People who use heroin typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a ‘rush.’ … After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours …”

   https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-are-immediate-short-term-effects-heroin-use

   Heroin and morphine users get violent only when they don’t have their favorite drug.

   Which at least implies keeping them somewhere that they can only use the drugs, and they get it whenever they want, as much as they want.  Which seems like it’s going to not go over well for similar reasons as with institutionalizing the mentally ill.

9. Coolidge
   Taras

   @Taras

   2:48 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 12, 2022

   kedavis (View Comment):

   Taras (View Comment):

   @ kedavis — I assumed most people knew this already:

   “People who use heroin typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a ‘rush.’ … After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours …”

   https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-are-immediate-short-term-effects-heroin-use

   Heroin and morphine users get violent only when they don’t have their favorite drug.

   Which at least implies keeping them somewhere that they can only use the drugs, and they get it whenever they want, as much as they want. Which seems like it’s going to not go over well for similar reasons as with institutionalizing the mentally ill.

   I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

   Aside from enforcing DUI laws against them, you can pretty much leave the addicts to their own devices.

   Just be sure they understand that sharing drugs with a child will bring an end to the good times!

10. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    2:52 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 12, 2022

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    @ kedavis — I assumed most people knew this already:

    “People who use heroin typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a ‘rush.’ … After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours …”

    https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-are-immediate-short-term-effects-heroin-use

    Heroin and morphine users get violent only when they don’t have their favorite drug.

    Which at least implies keeping them somewhere that they can only use the drugs, and they get it whenever they want, as much as they want. Which seems like it’s going to not go over well for similar reasons as with institutionalizing the mentally ill.

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

    Aside from enforcing DUI laws against them, you can pretty much leave the addicts to their own devices.

    Just be sure they understand that sharing drugs with a child will bring an end to the good times!

    There’s a lot more to it than just DUI.  But maybe some people know that because they’ve lived closer to or even within some affected areas.

    Are you thinking that the people who “do their business” on the streets and sidewalks of places like San Francisco AREN’T drug-users?

11. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    3:47 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 12, 2022

    Look at the Jesse Watters video. The policy did not net out. No way.

12. Coolidge
    Taras

    @Taras

    6:46 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    @ kedavis — I assumed most people knew this already:

    “People who use heroin typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a ‘rush.’ … After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours …”

    https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-are-immediate-short-term-effects-heroin-use

    Heroin and morphine users get violent only when they don’t have their favorite drug.

    Which at least implies keeping them somewhere that they can only use the drugs, and they get it whenever they want, as much as they want. Which seems like it’s going to not go over well for similar reasons as with institutionalizing the mentally ill.

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

    Aside from enforcing DUI laws against them, you can pretty much leave the addicts to their own devices.

    Just be sure they understand that sharing drugs with a child will bring an end to the good times!

    There’s a lot more to it than just DUI. But maybe some people know that because they’ve lived closer to or even within some affected areas.

    Are you thinking that the people who “do their business” on the streets and sidewalks of places like San Francisco AREN’T drug-users?

    Mentally ill, more likely; though the two populations overlap.

    Obviously laws against public defecation need to be enforced, whether the guilty parties are mentally ill or addicts or drunks or just lazy.  The addicts, at least, could be threatened with having their drugs taken away if they misbehave.

13. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    8:25 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    @ kedavis — I assumed most people knew this already:

    “People who use heroin typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a ‘rush.’ … After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours …”

    https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-are-immediate-short-term-effects-heroin-use

    Heroin and morphine users get violent only when they don’t have their favorite drug.

    Which at least implies keeping them somewhere that they can only use the drugs, and they get it whenever they want, as much as they want. Which seems like it’s going to not go over well for similar reasons as with institutionalizing the mentally ill.

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

    Aside from enforcing DUI laws against them, you can pretty much leave the addicts to their own devices.

    Just be sure they understand that sharing drugs with a child will bring an end to the good times!

    There’s a lot more to it than just DUI. But maybe some people know that because they’ve lived closer to or even within some affected areas.

    Are you thinking that the people who “do their business” on the streets and sidewalks of places like San Francisco AREN’T drug-users?

    Mentally ill, more likely; though the two populations overlap.

    Obviously laws against public defecation need to be enforced, whether the guilty parties are mentally ill or addicts or drunks or just lazy. The addicts, at least, could be threatened with having their drugs taken away if they misbehave.

    But they’re druggies, especially when under the influence they don’t care about behaving, and probably when not under the influence too.

    Plus if you take their drugs away, that’s when they become the most violent.

14. Coolidge
    Taras

    @Taras

    11:20 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    @ kedavis — I assumed most people knew this already:

    “People who use heroin typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a ‘rush.’ … After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours …”

    https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-are-immediate-short-term-effects-heroin-use

    Heroin and morphine users get violent only when they don’t have their favorite drug.

    Which at least implies keeping them somewhere that they can only use the drugs, and they get it whenever they want, as much as they want. Which seems like it’s going to not go over well for similar reasons as with institutionalizing the mentally ill.

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

    Aside from enforcing DUI laws against them, you can pretty much leave the addicts to their own devices.

    Just be sure they understand that sharing drugs with a child will bring an end to the good times!

    There’s a lot more to it than just DUI. But maybe some people know that because they’ve lived closer to or even within some affected areas.

    Are you thinking that the people who “do their business” on the streets and sidewalks of places like San Francisco AREN’T drug-users?

    Mentally ill, more likely; though the two populations overlap.

    Obviously laws against public defecation need to be enforced, whether the guilty parties are mentally ill or addicts or drunks or just lazy. The addicts, at least, could be threatened with having their drugs taken away if they misbehave.

    But they’re druggies, especially when under the influence they don’t care about behaving, and probably when not under the influence too.

    Plus if you take their drugs away, that’s when they become the most violent.

    Just to clarify:  at that point they are behind bars.

15. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    12:41 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    @ kedavis — I assumed most people knew this already:

    “People who use heroin typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a ‘rush.’ … After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours …”

    https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-are-immediate-short-term-effects-heroin-use

    Heroin and morphine users get violent only when they don’t have their favorite drug.

    Which at least implies keeping them somewhere that they can only use the drugs, and they get it whenever they want, as much as they want. Which seems like it’s going to not go over well for similar reasons as with institutionalizing the mentally ill.

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

    Aside from enforcing DUI laws against them, you can pretty much leave the addicts to their own devices.

    Just be sure they understand that sharing drugs with a child will bring an end to the good times!

    There’s a lot more to it than just DUI. But maybe some people know that because they’ve lived closer to or even within some affected areas.

    Are you thinking that the people who “do their business” on the streets and sidewalks of places like San Francisco AREN’T drug-users?

    Mentally ill, more likely; though the two populations overlap.

    Obviously laws against public defecation need to be enforced, whether the guilty parties are mentally ill or addicts or drunks or just lazy. The addicts, at least, could be threatened with having their drugs taken away if they misbehave.

    But they’re druggies, especially when under the influence they don’t care about behaving, and probably when not under the influence too.

    Plus if you take their drugs away, that’s when they become the most violent.

    Just to clarify: at that point they are behind bars.

    So you’re arguing for legal drug use only for those who are willing to be pre-incarcerated?  I don’t think you’ll get a lot of public support for that.

16. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    12:49 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    @ kedavis — I assumed most people knew this already:

    “People who use heroin typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a ‘rush.’ … After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours …”

    https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-are-immediate-short-term-effects-heroin-use

    Heroin and morphine users get violent only when they don’t have their favorite drug.

    Which at least implies keeping them somewhere that they can only use the drugs, and they get it whenever they want, as much as they want. Which seems like it’s going to not go over well for similar reasons as with institutionalizing the mentally ill.

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

    Aside from enforcing DUI laws against them, you can pretty much leave the addicts to their own devices.

    Just be sure they understand that sharing drugs with a child will bring an end to the good times!

    There’s a lot more to it than just DUI. But maybe some people know that because they’ve lived closer to or even within some affected areas.

    Are you thinking that the people who “do their business” on the streets and sidewalks of places like San Francisco AREN’T drug-users?

    Mentally ill, more likely; though the two populations overlap.

    Obviously laws against public defecation need to be enforced, whether the guilty parties are mentally ill or addicts or drunks or just lazy. The addicts, at least, could be threatened with having their drugs taken away if they misbehave.

    But they’re druggies, especially when under the influence they don’t care about behaving, and probably when not under the influence too.

    Plus if you take their drugs away, that’s when they become the most violent.

    Just to clarify: at that point they are behind bars.

    So you’re arguing for legal drug use only for those who are willing to be pre-incarcerated? I don’t think you’ll get a lot of public support for that.

    Everybody that breaks the law is risking “PRE-INCARCERATION”, which I currently view as a nonsensical term unless you want to try change my mind.  You are inventing the distinction. 

    Is one of your strategies trying to make the rhetoric so complicated and illogical everybody just gives up?

17. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    1:20 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    @ kedavis — I assumed most people knew this already:

    “People who use heroin typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a ‘rush.’ … After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours …”

    https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-are-immediate-short-term-effects-heroin-use

    Heroin and morphine users get violent only when they don’t have their favorite drug.

    Which at least implies keeping them somewhere that they can only use the drugs, and they get it whenever they want, as much as they want. Which seems like it’s going to not go over well for similar reasons as with institutionalizing the mentally ill.

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

    Aside from enforcing DUI laws against them, you can pretty much leave the addicts to their own devices.

    Just be sure they understand that sharing drugs with a child will bring an end to the good times!

    There’s a lot more to it than just DUI. But maybe some people know that because they’ve lived closer to or even within some affected areas.

    Are you thinking that the people who “do their business” on the streets and sidewalks of places like San Francisco AREN’T drug-users?

    Mentally ill, more likely; though the two populations overlap.

    Obviously laws against public defecation need to be enforced, whether the guilty parties are mentally ill or addicts or drunks or just lazy. The addicts, at least, could be threatened with having their drugs taken away if they misbehave.

    But they’re druggies, especially when under the influence they don’t care about behaving, and probably when not under the influence too.

    Plus if you take their drugs away, that’s when they become the most violent.

    Just to clarify: at that point they are behind bars.

    So you’re arguing for legal drug use only for those who are willing to be pre-incarcerated? I don’t think you’ll get a lot of public support for that.

    Everybody that breaks the law is risking “PRE-INCARCERATION”, which I currently view as a nonsensical term unless you want to try change my mind. You are inventing the distinction.

    Is one of your strategies trying to make the rhetoric so complicated and illogical everybody just gives up?

    Well I think some people – I don’t remember if you’re one of them – seem to be arguing that drug use should only be allowed within certain areas and/or facilities.  But if you’re going to allow people to use drugs in open society, then they aren’t restricted otherwise.  If they misbehave and so you take away their drugs, but they’re still in open society, then their damage isn’t limited if they become violent from being denied the drugs.

18. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    1:22 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    On the other hand, if they misbehave so you incarcerate them, why take away the drugs?  Once incarcerated their misbehavior wouldn’t affect the general public.

     

19. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    1:23 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Well I think some people – I don’t remember if you’re one of them – seem to be arguing that drug use should only be allowed within certain areas and/or facilities.  But if you’re going to allow people to use drugs in open society, then they aren’t restricted otherwise.  If they misbehave and so you take away their drugs, but they’re still in open society, then their damage isn’t limited if they become violent from being denied the drugs.

    And your policy has a bad track record. Mine couldn’t possibly be worse.

20. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    1:27 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    kedavis (View Comment):

    On the other hand, if they misbehave so you incarcerate them, why take away the drugs? Once incarcerated their misbehavior wouldn’t affect the general public.

     

    It could be negotiated into the legislation.

21. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    1:49 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Well I think some people – I don’t remember if you’re one of them – seem to be arguing that drug use should only be allowed within certain areas and/or facilities. But if you’re going to allow people to use drugs in open society, then they aren’t restricted otherwise. If they misbehave and so you take away their drugs, but they’re still in open society, then their damage isn’t limited if they become violent from being denied the drugs.

    And your policy has a bad track record. Mine couldn’t possibly be worse.

    Yours also requires facilities for incarceration etc, possibly even more of them and nicer/more-expensive ones than at present.

22. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    1:52 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Well I think some people – I don’t remember if you’re one of them – seem to be arguing that drug use should only be allowed within certain areas and/or facilities. But if you’re going to allow people to use drugs in open society, then they aren’t restricted otherwise. If they misbehave and so you take away their drugs, but they’re still in open society, then their damage isn’t limited if they become violent from being denied the drugs.

    And your policy has a bad track record. Mine couldn’t possibly be worse.

    Yours also requires facilities for incarceration etc, possibly even more of them and nicer/more-expensive ones than at present.

    You are reducing the size of the whole operation massively including ancillary operations.

23. Podcaster
    EJHill+

    @EJHill

    2:27 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    If this were 2015 and someone told you that the PA Senate race was between Oprah’s TV doctor and a guy accused of chasing an unarmed black jogger with a shotgun, what party would you assign each candidate?

24. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    2:44 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    EJHill+ (View Comment):

    If this were 2015 and someone told you that the PA Senate race was between Oprah’s TV doctor and a guy accused of chasing an unarmed black jogger with a shotgun, what party would you assign each candidate?

    Good catch!

    Although it could still be something of a head-scratcher since the Democrats have always been the truly racist party.

25. Coolidge
    OccupantCDN

    @OccupantCDN

    3:06 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EJHill+ (View Comment):

    If this were 2015 and someone told you that the PA Senate race was between Oprah’s TV doctor and a guy accused of chasing an unarmed black jogger with a shotgun, what party would you assign each candidate?

    Good catch!

    Although it could still be something of a head-scratcher since the Democrats have always been the truly racist party.

    I agree. If the incident was a known publicly documented event, the republicans would have hounded a such a candidate out of the primaries. (If they even made it that far) The way the media jumps on any scandal of any republican and then smears all republicans with it. Makes the republican establishment far more skittish about scandal.

    Look at the Jack Ryan scandal for example. This guy just wanted to have sex with his wife (Ok it was at fetish/BDSM club – so his request may have been extra spicy) – She denies him, files for divorce. … He looses his political career when suddenly the divorce papers are magically leaked in his senatorial campaign. (and KalaKazzam! Senator Obama!)

    This a republican sex scandal – the poor guy didnt even get to have sex…

26. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    3:13 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EJHill+ (View Comment):

    If this were 2015 and someone told you that the PA Senate race was between Oprah’s TV doctor and a guy accused of chasing an unarmed black jogger with a shotgun, what party would you assign each candidate?

    Good catch!

    Although it could still be something of a head-scratcher since the Democrats have always been the truly racist party.

    I agree. If the incident was a known publicly documented event, the republicans would have hounded a such a candidate out of the primaries. (If they even made it that far) The way the media jumps on any scandal of any republican and then smears all republicans with it. Makes the republican establishment far more skittish about scandal.

    Look at the Jack Ryan scandal for example. This guy just wanted to have sex with his wife (Ok it was at fetish/BDSM club – so his request may have been extra spicy) – She denies him, files for divorce. … He looses his political career when suddenly the divorce papers are magically leaked in his senatorial campaign. (and KalaKazzam! Senator Obama!)

    This a republican sex scandal – the poor guy didnt even get to have sex…

    If you mean the Jack Ryan scandal, I’m pretty sure he was at least having sex with Jeri Ryan, and that ain’t nothing!

27. Coolidge
    OccupantCDN

    @OccupantCDN

    4:23 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 13, 2022

    kedavis (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EJHill+ (View Comment):

    If this were 2015 and someone told you that the PA Senate race was between Oprah’s TV doctor and a guy accused of chasing an unarmed black jogger with a shotgun, what party would you assign each candidate?

    Good catch!

    Although it could still be something of a head-scratcher since the Democrats have always been the truly racist party.

    I agree. If the incident was a known publicly documented event, the republicans would have hounded a such a candidate out of the primaries. (If they even made it that far) The way the media jumps on any scandal of any republican and then smears all republicans with it. Makes the republican establishment far more skittish about scandal.

    Look at the Jack Ryan scandal for example. This guy just wanted to have sex with his wife (Ok it was at fetish/BDSM club – so his request may have been extra spicy) – She denies him, files for divorce. … He looses his political career when suddenly the divorce papers are magically leaked in his senatorial campaign. (and KalaKazzam! Senator Obama!)

    This a republican sex scandal – the poor guy didnt even get to have sex…

    If you mean the Jack Ryan scandal, I’m pretty sure he was at least having sex with Jeri Ryan, and that ain’t nothing!

    Yes. Not nothing… I kinda felt like I had a 16 Candles moment … I saw her underwear in a museum..

28. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    10:27 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 14, 2022

     

    Senate Democrats know that their open border policies enrich cartels and kill countless thousands. But they support open borders nonetheless: to satisfy their wealthy donors and their thirst for power. Pure malevolence.

    — Stephen Miller (@StephenM) October 14, 2022

     

     

29. Coolidge
    Taras

    @Taras

    11:44 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 14, 2022

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    @ kedavis — I assumed most people knew this already:

    “People who use heroin typically report feeling a surge of pleasurable sensation—a ‘rush.’ … After the initial effects, users usually will be drowsy for several hours …”

    https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-are-immediate-short-term-effects-heroin-use

    Heroin and morphine users get violent only when they don’t have their favorite drug.

    Which at least implies keeping them somewhere that they can only use the drugs, and they get it whenever they want, as much as they want. Which seems like it’s going to not go over well for similar reasons as with institutionalizing the mentally ill.

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

    Aside from enforcing DUI laws against them, you can pretty much leave the addicts to their own devices.

    Just be sure they understand that sharing drugs with a child will bring an end to the good times!

    There’s a lot more to it than just DUI. But maybe some people know that because they’ve lived closer to or even within some affected areas.

    Are you thinking that the people who “do their business” on the streets and sidewalks of places like San Francisco AREN’T drug-users?

    Mentally ill, more likely; though the two populations overlap.

    Obviously laws against public defecation need to be enforced, whether the guilty parties are mentally ill or addicts or drunks or just lazy. The addicts, at least, could be threatened with having their drugs taken away if they misbehave.

    But they’re druggies, especially when under the influence they don’t care about behaving, and probably when not under the influence too.

    Plus if you take their drugs away, that’s when they become the most violent.

    Just to clarify: at that point they are behind bars.

    So you’re arguing for legal drug use only for those who are willing to be pre-incarcerated? I don’t think you’ll get a lot of public support for that.

    I sometimes make the mistake of assuming people read comments with brain fully engaged.

    Anyway, just to clarify, the only practical way you can take people’s drugs away is by locking those people up and not letting them have them.  Which gives drug addicts a strong motive to behave themselves.

30. Member
    RufusRJones

    @RufusRJones

    11:50 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 14, 2022

    LETS MAKE THIS LONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!