Coffee & Cannabis
- Thread starter lurkeraspect84
- Start date
sur·ren·der: cease resistance, yield, quit, acquiesce, back down.
How true.
Based on genetics I am 2% French and we are good at surrendering or at the least I am 2% surrenderer.
My big mistake was responding to start with.
1.17 billion in losses - by economic genius.....in 10 years.....
lost more money than ANY US taxpayer in 1990-91......WTF???
To hear the hillbillies trying to spin this one - a doozy...there are no words...
I weep and fear for our country.....60 million complete dolts......
Oh no no, he didn’t lose money... it was actually just a trick. A tax trick. Same with the two bankruptcies in that time... he WANTED his businesses to fail, so that he could declare bankruptcy, because it helps. That’s why he wanted those casinos to fail, and why he was personally 900 million in debt... he had a plan, where he would get a bunch of junk bonds and then not be able to pay them back, because... something. So he didn’t lose more than any other American citizen... he is just *smarter* than any other American citizen. That billion+ in losses is just proof.
Or something like that.
Just saving folks the need to respond.
Based on who liked your post, I assume it was anti-Bert.
It is so good to enjoy the board without the bullshit.
Last edited:
And by “bullshit” he means people pointing out when he is full of bullshit
The man failed to make money in a casino. Let that sink in for a moment.
That’s not entirely true.
First off, it was TWO casinos.
Second, he personally made money, although apparently at the expense of everyone else, including investors, local businesses, and the casinos themselves.
“Mr. Trump assembled his casino empire by borrowing money at such high interest rates — after telling regulators he would not — that the businesses had almost no chance to succeed.
His casino companies made four trips to bankruptcy court, each time persuading bondholders to accept less money rather than be wiped out. But the companies repeatedly added more expensive debt and returned to the court for protection from lenders.
After narrowly escaping financial ruin in the early 1990s by delaying payments on his debts, Mr. Trump avoided a second potential crisis by taking his casinos public and shifting the risk to stockholders.
And he never was able to draw in enough gamblers to support all of the borrowing. During a decade when other casinos here thrived, Mr. Trump’s lagged, posting huge losses year after year. Stock and bondholders lost more than $1.5 billion.
“He put a number of local contractors and suppliers out of business when he didn’t pay them,” said Steven P. Perskie, who was New Jersey’s top casino regulator in the early 1990s. “So when he left Atlantic City, it wasn’t, ‘Sorry to see you go.’ It was, ‘How fast can you get the hell out of here?’”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.amp.html
You don't need to be sober to get a damned job. You just need to appear to be sober. Or good enough at your job that your employer can't afford to bitch about your inconstant sobriety. I don't feel the need to dismiss your other scare tactics. You are correct, I am not a parent.
Label me as an old dumb sober dude; however, a life of subsistence and being high is not good for anyone.
My whole family never smoked pot, took acid or anything like that.
Our punishment is having to pay taxes because we pay our own way.
By the way, I did not mean to lecture you just question your post. Being on drugs that screw up your mental facilities does not interest me. I do not think that society should accept folks who do that on a consistent basis. They should be punished.
Doesn't need to interest you and it's definitely not for everybody. I think our society's approach (prohibition) is a net negative. Some people can smoke weed and do acid when it suits them and seamlessly function otherwise (be productive happy people who others can depend on). Some people can't function without a certain substance for whatever reason but function well when they get their fix. Some people are one hit away from ruining their lives. I don't see the benefit in any of those instances of charging someone with a felony if the only felony is being around drugs. And I also think the country would be a safer place if we were less harsh on the people who push drugs. Most violence in drugs is because the penalties are severe. And they are probably more severe and reverberating than the harm caused only by people using drugs.
I think some parents see policy and morals as the same thing. Like they have to support ineffective policies for moral reasons because they want to set a good example for their children. I see the virtue, but ultimately disagree with the policy. For reasons both logical and selfish.
I agree with most of this post. Where I have some disagreements is on the penalty for pushing drugs. I think the penalty for pushing heroin should be extreme. It is one of the lowest of low ways to make money.
I'm ashamed to admit I see heroin as a lesser crime. And only because of fentanyl. My job has an element where we request death certificates occasionally and I haven't seen a pure heroin OD death cert ever. Always heroin combined with fentanyl.
Portugal decriminalized nearly everything. It didn’t lead to an increase in usage, but did lead to a decrease in HIV. War on drugs just doesn’t work. Data supports it.
Regardless of the data in usage, the war on drugs is a collosal waste of money and time.
It’s all about the data my friend.
But I agree. I assume you’re from Colorado? Is there any noticeable change there since decriminalizaton?
Of the mushrooms, or cannabis? I don't know if anything has actually changed on the mushroom laws yet. I agree with the idea though. Someone tripping while hiking or at a concert isn't a criminal.
As for cannabis, it's everywhere here but almost invisible if you aren't looking for it. There are shops everywhere with the green cross symbol, you smell it every once in a while while downtown / hiking / wherever (and a lot at concerts, which is normal for most cities), but it's not in your face.
As far as changes, I don't think there were a ton other than it being somewhat of a factor in the sheer number of people moving here. There are your typical homeless population downtown but I think they're usually on harder drugs. Some people also believe that rent / housing prices climbed partially because of legalization, as the shop owners couldn't put their "dirty" money into FDIC banks - so they bought houses cash.
Really? I smell it constantly when walking around in public in California.
Where / in what situation?
I've seen people walking in broad daylight smoking on the "mall" in Denver, but for the most part you only smell it randomly when out and about. People are typically discrete about it, except for the pens which can be smelled almost anywhere (inside of bars, gondolas, etc)
I rarely see who/where it's coming from. Just walking down any sidewalk in Downtown San Diego, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, La Jolla, Del Mar for more than a couple minutes and you'll smell it.
They get it from their heroin dealer regardless. They are predators preying on people who are in their darkest days. It isn't just junkies, there are good people who at one point had a lot to lose. It typically isn't fair to blame the dealer for the user's addiction, but it takes absolutely scum to feed off of people's addictions. Whether it be fentanyl, opioids or straight up heroin.
I have had some pretty eye opening interactions over the past year. I have gone to anonymous drug meetings and seen what drugs are doing to communities. Just hearing from people who don't reach out for help even though they acknowledge that they need it has made me trend towards supporting the decriminalization or legalization of drugs. It isn't just the fear of the law with a lot of people. It is the fear of losing jobs, families, lives. We aren't a very understanding society in the grand scheme of things. The money spent on the war on drugs would be better spent on facilities and programs that help people with their addictions. That said, I have no problem prosecuting the people who deal hard drugs and contribute to the destruction of communities and lives.
Sorry Letsgo, I'm not keeping up... are you pro legalization for weed? I know your job leads you to a lot of interactions with drugs and drug users, especially as they go through the legal system...
Absolutely on the weed. Drunks do way more damage to society and anyone over 21 can legally purchase alchohol.
That is a good post. I view things in a similar vein.
My drug policy would be to make it legal as it was before probation. Making it illegal makes it desirable and mysterious.
I am libertarian to the core. Freedom should apply to most drugs used for recreation. Prior to 1918, morphine, many opiates, marijuana and cocaine were not controlled and could be bought openly at stores. My father was born in 1902 and he would ride his horse to town to get his grandfather opium for his pain. You were free to raise marijuana. Cocaine was openly available at little cost. My dad always said no one thought about it and few were addicted, but even if they were it was cheap to maintain the addiction.
However, I personally know people whose lives have been ruined by addiction to drugs. If they were legal and cheap then half the evil, I assume, would go away. Legal drugs would be advantageous as labeling could ensure that one would not overdose.
I do believe that pot is a gateway drug. If you experiment with pot and the effects are not too bad you are then more willing to try others. I pressed my kids to avoid drugs at all cost. They did and I am happy.
I've never bought into the theory that pot is a gateway drug. What was the gateway to pot? The only similarities between marijuana and other drugs are that they are deemed by the government to be controlled substances.
It has always been a dumb argument. Of course the first drug you will try will be weed and not heroin or crack.
I agree with this due to weed being the last I tried.
I first tried chewing tobacco as a kid, then a cigarette my senior year in HS. Then beer @21 and finally weed @ 23. Beer is the only thing that stuck.
fwiw, chewing tobacco was by far the worst. My uncle had horses and he always chewed, we were cleaning out the stalls and I thought I'd be big and try it. It's still to this day one of the shittiest feelings I ever had.
Last edited:
You two are absolutely correct, I should have specified "illegal drug" (weed is still illegal where I'm at). I drank first, then smoked weed, then smoked cigarettes as a youngster. I'm guessing most people swap weed and cigarettes though.
I remember I was 12 when I was first offered weed, but of course, I was still a Nancy boy back then and just said no. It seemed pretty common from then on.
My first beer I tried was PBR and I'm grateful for that. It just got better from then on.
37 new pre trial clients this week for marijuana charges. I am about to become an activist for legalization.
Similar threads
