Lawyer faces marijuana charge

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | 6/17/02 | Michael Hasch

[Dane]

You will have to hit the link to read the article, but it seems that this attorney(Richard McCague) was smuggling marijuana to his "client"(Germaine Cook) who is charged with kidnapping a University of Pittsburgh student on Jan. 9th and making him drive around for nine hours and forcing him to make purcahses on his credit card.

[vin-one]

The more gains the pro-dope, pro-gay, pro-porn dipwads make in championing their alleged "private" right to indulge, the more public these obsessive behaviors become. There is nothing private about it at all.

KC, your leaps to equate Pot, with porn, and pro-gay, and anything else you dislike are amazing
I don't believe being moral and smoking weed have to be mutualy exclusive,
societal standards, such viewing porn in public should not be lumped in with MJ.
I can drink, and get drunk and still be technicaly moral. I can get high and still be moral,
but viewing porn and or being gay, is by your definition not moral.
Public displays of affection should not be the norm, public nudity should not be in the norm either
but if I choose to live in an area that allows that type of behaivor then that is my choice
You can not regulate morality, because whose morals are the ones that should be inforced.
Certainly not KC's.

[Kevin Curry]

[T]he issue and my questions was why should I not be allowed to smoke a joint in my own home If I can't why should I be allowed to get blindly drunk in my own home?

So you don't obejct at all to the fact that society pays enormous sums to cover the destructive costs of alcohol abuse (thus putting the lie to the argument that drinking is a "harms no one else" behavior). You just want society to cover the same costs for drug abusers.

The enormously costly effects of alcohol abuse have become so heavily socialized that no one--not even libertarians--notices or seems to care about those costs. We are now supposed to socialize the costs of drug abuse by coddling and enabling drug abusers too.

There is a reason George Soros is allied with the liberdopians in the campaign to legalize drugs--and it has nothing to do with libertarianism or acceptance of personal responsibility.

[vin-one]

So you don't obejct at all to the fact that society pays enormous sums to cover the destructive costs of alcohol abuse (thus putting the lie to the argument that drinking is a "harms no one else" behavior). You just want society to cover the same costs for drug abusers.

I do not agree that society pays for costs of abuse,
I even disagree more with the fact that we pay billions on the WOD.
I also believe in personal responsibility, maybe in your little world people get a free ride,
but not in mine, If I failed to work, I would evicted or foreclosed on my home
I had a brother who was an alcoholic and watched it eventualy kill him,
He also got turned down for all kinds of benefits, probably because he was white
If you choose to be a crack addict, alcoholic, or pot smoker, don't expect me to
support your habit. I already pay way to much in taxes anyway,

people should take responsiblity for their actions, and don't look for the Nanny gov't to care for them,
maybe if you and people like you would change your attitude from expecting the gov't to take care you, things would change.

[Kevin Curry]

Public displays of affection should not be the norm, public nudity should not be in the norm either

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

You will get and be subjected to this and more, because you haven't the spine to give rigidity to your "moral" protestations.

When are you going to realize that you get MORE--not less--of the destructive behavior you enable and refuse to condemn?

You are not asserting "morality" or even a reasonable facsimile thereof. Your are an quivering sack of jellyfish salad making sqeak-noises about morality but refusing to take an stand for morality.

You are one of those gibberers who believe you can dump a dozen dog turds in the public punchbowl and not soil the drink. "Just take care to dip punch from the spaces between the dog turds," is your sage libertarian advice.

[Kevin Curry]

I do not agree that society pays for costs of abuse, . . .

Well then, you're malinformed, misinformed, or uninformed. You're either grossly stupid, or you're ignorant. You choose.

And thank you for proving my argument so well. I said these costs had become so heavily socialized that few people--even libertarians--even notice them anymore. Right on cue, you popped in to assure me you sure didn't notice any.

[vin-one]

you are the idiot, I missed typed it should have read I don't agree that we should pay for it,
you know better than that KC, and sounds like you are all for it,

[vin-one]

I am still waiting for a direct answer,
Should I be allowed to get drunk at home?

Should I be allowed to smoke a joint at home?