PDA

View Full Version : What are your thoughts?



sandsjames
09-02-2014, 02:56 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/02/opinion/vanita-gupta-marijuana-life-sentence/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Here's an article from CNN about a guy getting a life sentence for a marijuana purchase. It raised a couple thoughts in my mind:

I personally think that marijuana should be completely legal/decriminalized and that there are many more severe crimes that deserve the prison time...and all this does is add to the overcrowding. However, whether I agree with the law or not, the fact is that the law is in place, the guy has two strikes, and whether or not it's a stupid law, he knew the consequences before he committed the crime.

So, in this instance, my feeling is that both sides are wrong. The law is ridiculous, but the guy knew was well aware of the law and knew the outcome of another conviction.

edit: and I apologize for the grammatical nightmare of this thread title.

Measure Man
09-02-2014, 03:09 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/02/opinion/vanita-gupta-marijuana-life-sentence/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Here's an article from CNN about a guy getting a life sentence for a marijuana purchase. It raised a couple thoughts in my mind:

I personally think that marijuana should be completely legal/decriminalized and that there are many more severe crimes that deserve the prison time...and all this does is add to the overcrowding.

I agree with that. However, the article seems to portray this guy as being prosecuted for drug dependency/use...I don't think he had 7 pounds of marijuana for personal use. Just a hunch.


However, whether I agree with the law or not, the fact is that the law is in place, the guy has two strikes, and whether or not it's a stupid law, he knew the consequences before he committed the crime.

On one hand, I'm generally NOT in favor of reasoning that says, "as long as the consequences are known ahead of time, no one can complain about it."...I don't agree with that.

On the other hand...when looking at "Third Strikes", we must keep in mind that the guy is not being sentenced to life for marijuana possession...he is being sentenced to life for a history/pattern of serious crimes, even if they are nonviolent. It still is probably too severe of a sentence...but don't make it sound like it's just for this crime, it's not, it's for the pattern of criminality.

You know it's like the Airman that keeps coming in late...you give him a verbal, then a LOC, then a LOR, eventually Art 15, then he cries "I got Art 15'd for coming in 10 minutes late!" No, you got Art 15'd for a pattern of coming in 10 minutes late, although only the most recent one might be on the charge sheet.


So, in this instance, my feeling is that both sides are wrong. The law is ridiculous, but the guy knew was well aware of the law and knew the outcome of another conviction.

edit: and I apologize for the grammatical nightmare of this thread title.

UncaRastus
09-02-2014, 03:09 PM
The title of this thread had been corrected.

Stalwart
09-02-2014, 04:08 PM
For marijuana, I would agree that legalization coupled with taxation and regulation is a viable option. That said, the law as it is today is what it is & I have little compassion for people who break the law.

A couple points about the article:


Clearly something is broken when a Missouri man named Jeff Mizanskey can be sentenced to die in prison for purchasing seven pounds of marijuana.

Seven pounds is a lot of marijuana. I would wonder if he was distributing or intending to ... that is just a whole lot of MJ.


While many of the lawmakers who passed harsh sentencing laws thought they were doing the right thing, the results are now in: This approach has devastated families and communities, generated high recidivism rates, drained state budgets from more productive investments, and has reinforced generations of poverty and disadvantage that disproportionately fall on communities of color.

-Families: I feel bad for the families, but the individual did break the law. Maybe families should be more of a family and exercise familial pressure on at risk individuals to not break the law.

-High recidivism: you could argue that one trip to jail didn't break the cycle of lawbreaking, so maybe harsher sentences for subsequent offenses is the way to go.3-Strikes laws are inherently recidivist law, a law in which repeat offenders are punished more harshly than first-time offenders, and recidivist laws had been repeated upheld by the Supreme Court in an attempt to combat state crime.

-Disproportionate on the basis of race. In California, African American men who constitute only about 3% of the state's population, but represent approximately 33% of second-strikers and 44% of third-strikers among California prison inmates (from the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice.) Maybe the issue of why such a small section of the society is repeatedly convicted of crime is a factor that needs to be addressed. Is it skewed enforcement & prosecution, or a pattern of behavior with one segment of the society choosing to repeatedly break the law?


The good news is that there is a growing bipartisan consensus all over the country that our criminal justice system has gone too far and that we can and must safely downsize our prison population. Missouri recently reformed the three strikes law that sentenced Jeff to prison for life. If he were sentenced today, he could have received a significantly shorter sentence and be eligible for parole.

But he was sentenced in accordance with the law at the time, a law which at the Supreme Court has been ruled constitutional as far back as 1970 and as recently as 2012.

[EDIT]: Overall, as I said, not a fan of those who break the law -- especially repeatedly. That said, I am also not a fan of legislatively tying the hands of judges to use their judgement in sentencing -- that said, 3-Strikes laws exist in many cases because of 'activist' judges whose sentencing records were viewed as sub-par by the people/citizens of the localities. So ... it is a crap situation all around. I don't have a good fix, and never overly thought on the issue.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-02-2014, 04:54 PM
I'm for legalizing marijuana, and I think that the use of it "on the job" can be regulated by employers, unions, and professional guilds.

If you think about it, that is exactly what is happening right now. If an air traffic controller shows up for work drunk on vodka, high on weed, or prescription medications, it is up to the supervisors and co-workers to take action.

If a union wants to prohibit recreational drug use as part of a condition of employment let them do that. Employers are more than capable of enforcing professional behavior within their work force. Same goes for the federal, state and local governments. Drug use can be regulated as a condition of employment. You want to work here? Then sign this agreement not to use recreational drugs.

In terms of removing a big revenue stream from organized crime, and placing it with US companies who are taxed and contribute jobs and economic growth, that is a tremendous win. Tremendous!

I can't help but to compare this to the prohibition era and what happened to organized crime. The government created alcohol kingpins, and a decade of incredible violence because it banned alcohol.

I'd much rather have legal distillers of alcohol making an American product, than I would having smuggling gangs, and organized crime bosses getting rich from selling booze.

Same goes for Marijuana, let Phillip Morris grow the stuff, and sell it legally. We get to tax it, and the money vanishes from the pockets of Mexican drug cartels.

As for hard drugs like Methamphetamine and heroin? I cringe at the thought of legalizing them, but maybe we need to explore the possibility?

For now, marijuana is a good place to start.

Everyone knows the war on drugs is a failure, it is time to try something else.

BENDER56
09-02-2014, 05:43 PM
Agreed. The 40-year, one-trillion-dollar-and-counting war on (some) drugs is not only a failure -- overall rates of illegal drug use in America have not declined -- but its consequences have been more harmful than the drug use it futilely tried to stop.

This misguided war has resulted in high incarceration rates for non-violent offenses (disproportionately affecting minorities, even though surveys show just as much drug use by whites). The US has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world. Yeah, that's right -- higher than counties like Iran, China and Russia. USA! USA! We're number one! We make up five percent of the world's population and house 25 percent of the world's prisoners.

It has contributed to the increased use of military-style tactics by law enforcement agencies and degradation of our fourth-amendment protections against search and seizure. It has fostered the increased use of asset forfeiture for people who are only suspected of committing crimes, and in some cases, for people who had nothing to do with any crime to begin with.

It deters true addicts from seeking the help they need due to fear of facing criminal penalties. Hell, there are cases where users died from opiate overdose because their fellow users were afraid to call 911 for them.

We continue the inane double standard that allows widespread sale of alcohol -- a drug arguably more dangerous than marijuana. And not just in a harmful-to-the-body sense -- ask any cop who he'd rather confront, a drunk or a stoner.

Marijuana (and some other drugs which probably could be legalized) may be harmful to its users, but so is alcohol and tobacco -- both freely legal and accepted (for the most part). Whatever collective harm might befall our country due to drug legalization, the failed war on drugs is worse. This is truly a situation where the cure has been worse than the disease.

sandsjames
09-02-2014, 09:46 PM
I'm for legalizing marijuana, and I think that the use of it "on the job" can be regulated by employers, unions, and professional guilds.



I agree to a point...and I'm all for the legalization.

However, I think one difference that comes into play between alcohol and pot is that you can be blood tested at work (hypothetically) and it's very easy to tell if you are above levels that put you under the influence. You cannot, though, tell if positive pot test is a current thing or is from a week ago. So it would be very difficult, even if you suspect it, to tell is someone is currently under the influence from any sort of blood/urine test.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-03-2014, 01:55 PM
I agree to a point...and I'm all for the legalization.

However, I think one difference that comes into play between alcohol and pot is that you can be blood tested at work (hypothetically) and it's very easy to tell if you are above levels that put you under the influence. You cannot, though, tell if positive pot test is a current thing or is from a week ago. So it would be very difficult, even if you suspect it, to tell is someone is currently under the influence from any sort of blood/urine test.

If you are talking about the type of test the DOD uses to screen service members, then yes.

However, there are other types of drug tests for narcotics and opiates that can determine impairment.

Think of the drug screening the NTSB uses in accident investigations.

TJMAC77SP
09-03-2014, 03:46 PM
All drug screening is the same. They measure whether the substance (or their byproducts) are present (usually expressed in milligrams per deciliter or some such measurement) in whatever the medium (blood, urine, hair, etc.). The thresholds are what is key in determining timeframe of usage.

sandsjames
09-03-2014, 04:11 PM
If you are talking about the type of test the DOD uses to screen service members, then yes.

However, there are other types of drug tests for narcotics and opiates that can determine impairment.

Think of the drug screening the NTSB uses in accident investigations.

Well, then...no issues. I do learn something from you once in awhile. It should be legal everywhere...for everyone of legal age.

garhkal
09-03-2014, 05:24 PM
You know it's like the Airman that keeps coming in late...you give him a verbal, then a LOC, then a LOR, eventually Art 15, then he cries "I got Art 15'd for coming in 10 minutes late!" No, you got Art 15'd for a pattern of coming in 10 minutes late, although only the most recent one might be on the charge sheet.

Well said MM. He is going to jail for a continual and repeated history of violating the law, not cause he simply had 7lb of MJ for his own use (which i seriously doubt WAS for personal use, more like he was getting ready to sell it).

Though i find it funny as heck, a female teacher who sexually assaults a child in her class, can get 6 months, while this guy can get life. Our laws of what crime get's what punishment are seriously out of whak.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-03-2014, 05:56 PM
All drug screening is the same. They measure whether the substance (or their byproducts) are present (usually expressed in milligrams per deciliter or some such measurement) in whatever the medium (blood, urine, hair, etc.). The thresholds are what is key in determining timeframe of usage.

I'm kind of surprised to see you make such a sweepingly broad declaration, my "modern-stonic" friend. Usually you are painfully precise, and happy to dissect sentences, much to the chagrin and frustration of others.


Here is a little nugget from California NORML: http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html


The most popular kind of drug test is the urine test, which can detect marijuana for days or weeks after use. Note that urine tests do not detect the psychoactive component in marijuana, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), and therefore in no way measure impairment; rather, they detect the non-psychoactive marijuana metabolite THC-COOH, which can linger in the body for days and weeks with no impairing effects. Because of THC-COOH's unusually long elimination time, urine tests are more sensitive to marijuana than other commonly used drugs. According to a survey by Quest Diagnostics, 50% of all drug test positives are for marijuana.

Blood tests are a better detector of recent use, since they measure the active presence of THC in the system. Because they are invasive and difficult to administer, blood tests are used less frequently. They are typically used in investigations of accidents, injuries and DUIs, where they can give a useful indication of whether the subject was actually under the influence.

Hair tests are the most objectionable form of drug testing, since they do not measure current use, but rather non-psychoactive residues that remain in the hair for months afterwards. These residues are absorbed internally and do not appear in the hair until 7-10 days after first use. Afterwards, they cannot be washed out by shampoos (though shampoos may help remove external smoke particles that get stuck in the hair). Hair tests are more likely to detect regular than occasional marijuana use. One study found that 85% of daily users tested positive for marijuana, versus 52% of occasional smokers (1-5 times per week). Ingested cannabis was less likely to be detected than smoked marijuana [01]. It is doubtful whether hair tests are sensitive to one-time use of marijuana.

Saliva testing is a newer, less proven technology. The sensitivity of saliva tests is not well established in the case of marijuana. In theory, they are supposed to detect recent use, but this may range from several hours to over a day. They are supposed to detect secretions from inside the oral tissues that cannot be washed out with mouthwash. Because they are less intrusive than blood or urine tests, the industry has been eager to develop saliva tests. Due to reliability problems, they have yet to gain acceptance in the U.S., but they have come into use in some other countries, such as Australia. An international study of various onsite saliva tests concluded that no device was reliable enough to be recommended for roadside screening of drivers (Rosita Project, 2003-2006).

TJMAC77SP
09-03-2014, 07:43 PM
I'm kind of surprised to see you make such a sweepingly broad declaration, my "modern-stonic" friend. Usually you are painfully precise, and happy to dissect sentences, much to the chagrin and frustration of others.


Here is a little nugget from California NORML: http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html

Exactlywhat part of my statement that regardless of what is tested the end result isto detect the substance or it's byproducts (more accurately metabolites) waswrong? The poster you quoted cited bloodand urine testing. Your response alludedto different types of tests. There isonly one type of test. The difference isin what is tested. If you want to inaccurately call that different types of testing then so be it.
I am awareof the frustration and chagrin and exactly who feels this. I have no problems with that.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-03-2014, 08:04 PM
Exactlywhat part of my statement that regardless of what is tested the end result isto detect the substance or it's byproducts (more accurately metabolites) waswrong? The poster you quoted cited bloodand urine testing. Your response alludedto different types of tests. There isonly one type of test. The difference isin what is tested. If you want to inaccurately call that different types of testing then so be it.
I am awareof the frustration and chagrin and exactly who feels this. I have no problems with that.


Is Freddie Flintstone feeling feisty today?

The part of your statement that I put in bold font. You claimed that all drug screening is the same, it clearly isn't.

Urine testing is used to detect usage, while blood testing is typically used to detect impairment.

You chimed in with your statement immediately following an exchange between SJ and I about the ability to test for being impaired due to smoking pot.

Don't try to claim that you weren't trying to discredit my post about the DOD drug screening urine test and NTSB accident investigation blood test being different.

The test aren't all the same.

No soup for you! Next!

TJMAC77SP
09-03-2014, 08:37 PM
Is Freddie Flintstone feeling feisty today?

The part of your statement that I put in bold font. You claimed that all drug screening is the same, it clearly isn't.

Urine testing is used to detect usage, while blood testing is typically used to detect impairment.

You chimed in with your statement immediately following an exchange between SJ and I about the ability to test for being impaired due to smoking pot.

Don't try to claim that you weren't trying to discredit my post about the DOD drug screening urine test and NTSB accident investigation blood test being different.

The test aren't all the same.

No soup for you! Next!


No feistier than any other day but I think we know how you are feeling. Thanks for asking BTW.

I deny nothing. I did discredit your post with regard to different typesof drug screening tests. They all do the same thing. The difference lies in the threshold levels.

If you want to erroneously want classify tests as different based on what medium is tested so be it but the example you have provided fails to make your point. Perhaps you could explain to us how, other than the medium being tested (blood vs. urine) a DoD drug screening differs from a DOT post-accident test?

Impaired and presence are separated by threshold alone, not different types of tests.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-03-2014, 08:58 PM
Note that urine tests do not detect the psychoactive component in marijuana, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), and therefore in no way measure impairment; rather, they detect the non-psychoactive marijuana metabolite THC-COOH, which can linger in the body for days and weeks with no impairing effects.

Blood tests are a better detector of recent use, since they measure the active presence of THC in the system. Because they are invasive and difficult to administer, blood tests are used less frequently. They are typically used in investigations of accidents, injuries and DUIs, where they can give a useful indication of whether the subject was actually under the influence.



They test for different chemical compounds and are typically used for different purposes. They are not the same.

It is time for you to apologize, you great big annoying Flintstoner. :)

TJMAC77SP
09-03-2014, 09:31 PM
They test for different chemical compounds and are typically used for different purposes. They are not the same.

It is time for you to apologize, you great big annoying Flintstoner. :)

Where exactly do you think THC-COOH comes from? For what its' worth a urine test for alcohol also tests for the metabolite of alcohol which can only be produced by the ingestion of alcohol.

Is that your definition of a different test?

Let me tell you mine.

If it is suspected someone has leukemia there are several different and distinct tests which can be conducted.

One for example is a blood chemistry panel which looks mainly for abnormal white blood cells.

Another different test is a bone marrow aspiration which evaluates the condition of several types of cells present to include stem cells and proportions of said cells.

Same desired goal, two different tests.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-03-2014, 10:30 PM
Where exactly do you think THC-COOH comes from? For what its' worth a urine test for alcohol also tests for the metabolite of alcohol which can only be produced by the ingestion of alcohol.

Is that your definition of a different test?

Let me tell you mine.

If it is suspected someone has leukemia there are several different and distinct tests which can be conducted.

One for example is a blood chemistry panel which looks mainly for abnormal white blood cells.

Another different test is a bone marrow aspiration which evaluates the condition of several types of cells present to include stem cells and proportions of said cells.

Same desired goal, two different tests.

THC-COOH comes from the process of metabolization, when the body metabolizes THC it changes the compound into a new chemical compound called THC-COOH.

THC-COOH causes no impairment. The urine test only detects THC-COOH and therefore can not be used to determine if the user was impaired at the time of an accident.

THC, prior to being broken down (metabolized) causes impairment. Blood tests are used to detect THC, and can be used to determine impairment.

THC and THC-COOH are different chemical compounds, go take Chemistry 101 if you are still confused.

Different tests, different purposes (determining use -vs- determining impairment).

Your statement, "all drug screening is the same" is patently false.

Your leukemia analogy is irrelevant.

Feel free to apologize any time.

TJMAC77SP
09-04-2014, 02:02 AM
THC-COOH comes from the process of metabolization, when the body metabolizes THC it changes the compound into a new chemical compound called THC-COOH.

THC-COOH causes no impairment. The urine test only detects THC-COOH and therefore can not be used to determine if the user was impaired at the time of an accident.

THC, prior to being broken down (metabolized) causes impairment. Blood tests are used to detect THC, and can be used to determine impairment.

THC and THC-COOH are different chemical compounds, go take Chemistry 101 if you are still confused.

Different tests, different purposes (determining use -vs- determining impairment).

Your statement, "all drug screening is the same" is patently false.

Your leukemia analogy is irrelevant.

Feel free to apologize any time.

I have already stated that if your definition of different types of drug testing refers to the medium tested (blood vs urine) then you are indeed correct.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-04-2014, 01:03 PM
I have already stated that if your definition of different types of drug testing refers to the medium tested (blood vs urine) then you are indeed correct.



Impaired and presence are separated by threshold alone, not different types of tests.


Face it Freddy, you bumbled your way into yet another tedious internet spat that you lost. You were also clearly wrong about that "threshold alone" jazz.

I suggest you go kick sand in the face of SJ if you want an easy win. If you want another shot at me, you need to go spend a year training in an Oakland gym with Apollo Creed, and a couple of dozen hungry boxers. But don't do any of that montage crap to make the year pass faster, spend the entire time working out.

TJMAC77SP
09-04-2014, 01:27 PM
Face it Freddy, you bumbled your way into yet another tedious internet spat that you lost. You were also clearly wrong about that "threshold alone" jazz.

I suggest you go kick sand in the face of SJ if you want an easy win. If you want another shot at me, you need to go spend a year training in an Oakland gym with Apollo Creed, and a couple of dozen hungry boxers. But don't do any of that montage crap to make the year pass faster, spend the entire time working out.

In the context of your original statement you were correct and I was wrong.

I am curious though how you think that repeatedly referring to an avatar which I clearly chose is supposed to insult me? Smells of desperation to me. Why are you desperate?

Secondly, why is it you feel it necessary to insult anyone during a discussion?

Thirdly could you give me other examples of 'internet spat(s)" I have "lost"?

Absinthe Anecdote
09-04-2014, 03:18 PM
In the context of your original statement you were correct and I was wrong.

I am curious though how you think that repeatedly referring to an avatar which I clearly chose is supposed to insult me? Smells of desperation to me. Why are you desperate?

Secondly, why is it you feel it necessary to insult anyone during a discussion?

Thirdly could you give me other examples of 'internet spat(s)" I have "lost"?

Desperate?

I would describe my antics as being primarily driven by boredom, but I suppose one could conclude that I'm desperate for something better to do.

I certainly do not teasingly call you a "Flintstoner" out of desperation for being on the losing end of matching wits with you.

You shouldn't take being called Freddy as an insult, more of a mild taunt?

Think back to the days when you were a young SP, riding on the Posting Bus to the WSA. Remember the taunts and jokes, the constant jockeying for dominance? It's more of that sort of thing.

I used to have an Excel spreadsheet that listed all of your wins and losses on the forum, but I seem to have misplaced it. You'll have to take my word for it when I say that you have a dismal track record against me.

You do a little better against Rusty Jones, but not much.

TJMAC77SP
09-04-2014, 08:11 PM
Desperate?

I would describe my antics as being primarily driven by boredom, but I suppose one could conclude that I'm desperate for something better to do.

I certainly do not teasingly call you a "Flintstoner" out of desperation for being on the losing end of matching wits with you.

You shouldn't take being called Freddy as an insult, more of a mild taunt?

Think back to the days when you were a young SP, riding on the Posting Bus to the WSA. Remember the taunts and jokes, the constant jockeying for dominance? It's more of that sort of thing.

I used to have an Excel spreadsheet that listed all of your wins and losses on the forum, but I seem to have misplaced it. You'll have to take my word for it when I say that you have a dismal track record against me.

You do a little better against Rusty Jones, but not much.

Taunt, insult. Whatever you say.

A spread sheet? That is very interesting. Of course, the decision on 'wins' and 'losses' were made by you correct? Pardon me if I don't accept your word. Unless of course you are willing to accept mine that you are delusional.

MM: I expect you will be lecturing AA soon. Funny thing is that of the three of us the only one who hasn't brought up 'winning' an argument on the MTF is me.

The one part I absolutely can understand is the boredom. That is certainly the norm here now.

With everything that has happened and is happening around the world, we have this thread and others like 10 pages about removing bibles from Navy Lodges.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-04-2014, 11:52 PM
Taunt, insult. Whatever you say.

A spread sheet? That is very interesting. Of course, the decision on 'wins' and 'losses' were made by you correct? Pardon me if I don't accept your word. Unless of course you are willing to accept mine that you are delusional.

MM: I expect you will be lecturing AA soon. Funny thing is that of the three of us the only one who hasn't brought up 'winning' an argument on the MTF is me.

The one part I absolutely can understand is the boredom. That is certainly the norm here now.

With everything that has happened and is happening around the world, we have this thread and others like 10 pages about removing bibles from Navy Lodges.

You can pretend that you don't approve of me, but I know better. You would have loved having a guy like me on your SP Flight.

All my Flight Chiefs used to lavish me with attention. They'd routinely pick me to be the aggressor in exercises because of my ability to motivate the other airmen to be the patrol that got to apprehend me.

The four years that I was a cop, I bet I was searched and handcuffed more times as any career criminal. Apparently, they had so much respect for me that they thought I could escape from being handcuffed to the perimeter fence for half the shift.

I'd mess with their minds by not escaping, so they'd eventually have to drive all the way back out to the perimeter to release me.

Then they'd show how much they trusted me, by assigning me to pick up the box lunches from the chow hall. Dumb move on their part, you know how they used to call box lunches, box nasties? I think that term might have started on account of what I used to do to their chow before I dropped it off at the ECP.

Anyway, pretend to be haughty all you want Freddy, I know you really like me.

Measure Man
09-05-2014, 12:09 AM
MM: I expect you will be lecturing AA soon.

Hey, AA, stop "calling out" TJ like that.


Funny thing is that of the three of us the only one who hasn't brought up 'winning' an argument on the MTF is me.

When did I do this?

But, yeah, 'winning' isn't your thing, "calling out" is...LOL. Or is it crying "hyperbole HYPERBOLE!"


The one part I absolutely can understand is the boredom. That is certainly the norm here now.

With everything that has happened and is happening around the world, we have this thread and others like 10 pages about removing bibles from Navy Lodges.

...and yet here you are.

TJMAC77SP
09-05-2014, 02:29 AM
You can pretend that you don't approve of me, but I know better. You would have loved having a guy like me on your SP Flight.

All my Flight Chiefs used to lavish me with attention. They'd routinely pick me to be the aggressor in exercises because of my ability to motivate the other airmen to be the patrol that got to apprehend me.

The four years that I was a cop, I bet I was searched and handcuffed more times as any career criminal. Apparently, they had so much respect for me that they thought I could escape from being handcuffed to the perimeter fence for half the shift.

I'd mess with their minds by not escaping, so they'd eventually have to drive all the way back out to the perimeter to release me.

Then they'd show how much they trusted me, by assigning me to pick up the box lunches from the chow hall. Dumb move on their part, you know how they used to call box lunches, box nasties? I think that term might have started on account of what I used to do to their chow before I dropped it off at the ECP.

Anyway, pretend to be haughty all you want Freddy, I know you really like me.

I am no longer using my security clearance........would you mind sharing your pharmaceuticals?

TJMAC77SP
09-05-2014, 02:30 AM
Hey, AA, stop "calling out" TJ like that.



When did I do this?

But, yeah, 'winning' isn't your thing, "calling out" is...LOL. Or is it crying "hyperbole HYPERBOLE!"



...and yet here you are.

And you didn't call Christians bullies either right?

Of course here I am...................

((still say you should have stopped at the second post))

Measure Man
09-05-2014, 02:35 AM
And you didn't call Christians bullies either right?
LOL...all Christians? Some Christians? ...or, Christians, in general? Or is the "in general" part not important anymore?


Of course here I am...................

((still say you should have stopped at the second post))

Oh...snap, did you just call me out again?...man, you are really good at this.

This is part where you put in a quote of mine, then claim it says something it clearly doesn't, I think...oh, I know, you can post a quote of mine that says "Good Morning" and say "see, right there you said you were 'winning'"

Absinthe Anecdote
09-05-2014, 03:59 AM
I am no longer using my security clearance........would you mind sharing your pharmaceuticals?

I think you could use something to help you lighten up a bit.

I would suggest you go buy a tank of Dinitrogen monoxide (N2O).

Oops! I forgot, you have trouble with identifying chemical compounds, the common name is laughing gas.

If you've ever watched a few of those old Three Stooges episodes, you've probably seen them in the dentist office getting high on it.