DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... What went down in Piketon?

Pretty sure no one died to create my drink. Can't say the same about pot.

Nobody died to create my pot.

You might want to educate yourself on how easy it is for grow operations.

This is a thread about people who were murdered execution style for growing pot, is it not?

Well, you know they did back during prohibition, right?

Sorry but if you have to reach all the way back to prohibition, then your point is meaningless. I was not alive back then.

It's not meaningless, you just don't like being called out on the double standard.

Also, alcohol ok is legal, yet people still get drunk and do terrible things.

I don't see you calling for a ban on alcohol. Never mind you leading by example and quit drinking.

Don't complain about my vice, I won't complain about yours.

Because if we start comparing the numbers of alcohol related deaths compared to weed deaths, you won't have a leg to stand on.

Once again you miss the point. We are talking about # of people who die to create our drug. Trying to dig up examples of things that didn't even happen in this century, much less the last 50 years is kind of pathetic.

This is a thread about several people murdered execution style in your state for growing pot.

Maybe you could address these people's senseless murders.

You're alive during marijuana prohibition. Prohibition have create a violent culture around the distribution of the drugs.

It should be obvious that growing and consuming a plant is not inherently homicidal, it is the distribution of an illegal good that is inherently homicidal.

To claim no one died to create alcohol is very disingenous considering the widely reported history of bootlegging operations.



Reminder that prohibition began in 1920 and lasted until 1933. Well, you can clearly tell by that graph that the homicide rates dropped after the legalization of alcohol and don't increase until Nixon began 'The War on Drugs'. I mean, that's really as telling as can be, about the state of our affairs.

You're kind of proving my point, CHS. Good job.

I don't personally care about alcohol prohibition because it's ancient history from last century. If you can't provide a more recent stat about how the creation of alcohol kills people, then I will just laugh you off.

There's nothing to address.

Nobody on here is remotely defending these murders. Nobody on this board would.

But trying to blame me as if I'm responsible because I smoke pot is just as pathetic as anything else.

Your argument has no boiled down to which is worse: those who make and traffic, or those who consume?

And that's where history comes into play.

So let's compare.

Historically in the US, how many people have died creating and trafficking alcohol?

Now how many people have died from alcohol use and related incidents?

how many people died in the US for creating and trafficking weed?

how many people have died from weed use and weed related incidents?

You realize that prohibition didn't even start a century ago, nor did it end a century ago, right?

From your words, 1920-1933. That is last century.

1999 was also last century. However, it still wasn't a century ago.

It's 100% true. You have been doing it a lot lately, so the only one that needs to check themself is you.i

Freudian slip for the ages.

You just don't like what I have to say.

Use the ignore feature.

Why would I use the ignore feature?

I have a feeling it's YOU that doesn't like what I have to say.

Oh boo hoo maybe you should take your own advice.

Boo hoo?

I find it funny how me and CHS came with actual arguments, eve started talking trash and trolling, and then captain save her came out of nowhere like she was somehow the victim.

This board is a trip.

Reaching for ancient history when we are talking about current events is hardly relevant.

Also, you do realize you lost your secret clearence when you quit the military, right? Just like I lost my top secret when I quit the fbi? It looks nice on an application, but means nothing unless you can repass the tests.

of course, but there's a 24 month period where it's easier to get it reinstated of the job requires it. even after the period, it's still eaiser to have it reapplied rather than never having one.

i might look at a contracting job since i have the experience after this semester ends. guess what? i'm still in the grace period.

so we're all good my way. you haven't told me anything i don't already know.

but i guess your age must have gave you magical powers now?

You thought you were gonna work for the feds. You posted that in the other thread.

Just nope. Not happening.

Are you better? Honest question. I thought the issue you had made so you couldn't even sell cars - even though you sold 12 in 2 weeks. How will you get a contracting job, or an FBI job, or any job that requires clearance?

Honest questions. I don't know how it all works.

Lolz you did say it. Oh Im gonna work for the fbi, cia, nato, etc!

Eve: Um you do realize they do drug tests and will reject your stoned ass?

yea like, imma apply there.

what dumbass would honestly think they have 100% certainty or working somewhere like that?

i guess the better question is what sort of person would think someone would view things like that.

says less about me, more about you.

i couldn't sell cars because i wasn't being treated yet at the VA for PTSD.

also, once again, the feds isn't the only employer in the world.

you and Eve getting caught up in the acronym FBI as if they the only people that hire.

you can have a clearance in non federal jobs, just in case you weren't aware.

Your post from the other thread.

I read it as is written. You saw the feds as a potential employer. Anyone who says different is high.

EVERY company is a potential employer.

lol man what the hell? Did you not see the Feds, or hell, ANY job you applied to as a potential employer?

this is getting weak.

Dude you did name them specifically.

For example, I wouldnt name "seaworld" if I didnt plan on applying there.

that doesn't make any sense.

i plan on applying there after i get my degree. so it makes sense to name them, or not?

keep trollin trollin trollin trollin

right now you're being really lame and petty. you're trying to grasp at anything at this point.

if that's what helps you sleep at night, whatever.

You sure about that statement?

First of all, you COULD sell cars. 12 in 2 weeks is pretty darn good.

Secondly, prior to you selling cars, you posted about how the VA treatment drugs just made things worse. So, you WERE getting treated. It didn't work then, but it does now?

How does a full military disability work? I mean, a person gets it, but what happens if they get a job also? Asking because I don't know.

they gave me drugs, i wasn't seeing a shrink on the regular.

you keep trying to make your own perspective and just end up making this worse. just stop.

and just so you're aware, there's two types of 100%.

the first one is when you apply for IU, which is individual unemployability. That's when you have either 1 claim thats 70% or higher, or two claims at i think 60% a piece, but those disabilities keep you from getting hired or maintaining employment.

they will boost you to 100%, but you can't work.

then there's the normal scheduled 100%. that could be anything, but typically to get a normal 100% rating, the doctors must think that most likely the disability will be permanent.

you get reevaluated for ratings ever 5 years. so for the normal 100%, the first 5 years it's temporary. generally-and this is just generally- after you get reevaluated, and they rate you at 100% again, it's considered permanent. you're allowed to work with any normal va rating.

i have the normal VA rating.

so it doesn't matter how much money i make, 40k or 120k, i can still work with 100%. but if i had the IU rating, i wouldn't be allowed to.

as far as jobs, it just depends. the private sector won't know about my mental health, typically. however, the problem that most people realize is that military people get discriminated against, because some managers view us as ticking time bombs. there's actually a lot of detail that goes into that.

government agencies, i'm not sure if they have access or not. I'm sure if i was trying to be a fed, like an agent or whatever, they would have access to my mental health records.

but working at nato as a relations analyst, maybe not. so it just depends.

Thank you for that answer.

Or maybe you are. Are you familiar with a common denominator??

Eve, first and foremost, you are not psychic are you? Because if you are so POSITIVE that these people were killed over weed, then you have news nobody else has.

Second, there are hundreds of alcohol related deaths daily! There is no comparison to weed when asking which is safer, NONE.

Third, you only took the moral high ground after I told Swish to spark up because you felt like taking a poke at me... Please don't try to deny that. WE ALL KNOW YOU HAVE A THING ABOUT FIGHTING WITH ME ON HERE.

Fourth and the argument ender, these people were not killed for growing pot. They were killed over money, greed, revenge, religion or for some twisted serial killer world view. NOBODY kills to get high on weed, they might kill to steal it and sell it but that would be about money not weed. And if you knew anything about weed at all, you would know the best weed grown in Ohio comes out of meigs county not Piketon.

Uh Oh! After re-reading that last paragraph I realized chances are the killer is Republican! jk jk jk

And one more thing Eve, friends don't let friends post drunk, so stop, just stop. lol

I don't believe anyone said that they were killed to smoke weed, but they were killed because of it. I would suspect they either tried to change the deal they made, they were stealing, or they threatened to turn over evidence.

As for the assertions that if pot was legal these people wouldn't have been killed, I have a few thoughts. First of all, it is illegal. That's kind of like saying, if murder wasn't illegal no crime would have been committed. If you want it legal, work to change the law. Prohibition was repealed because people really didn't like the law and worked to change it. They lobbied to change the law and juries refused to prosecute for manufacture or possession of alcohol.

I find pot and alcohol to be very similar with both it's use and the damage it does to the body. Both make people just as stupid. It also damages the body just like tobacco. The only reason alcohol is favored over pot is because alcohol is the traditional drug of a majority European descent populace. I also think the politicians of the time saw pot as a communist plot to subvert the American culture, so they made it illegal.

yup, remember the good old days before every thread was an argument?

You do know the reason it was made illegal, right?