TexasCHLforum.com

cyphur wrote:However, we should limit you to your home while under the influence. Or at the very least, there must be a restriction against driving or operating machinery/weapons under the influence.

That is already the law. It's equally illegal to drive while under the influence of an illegal drug, a legal prescription drug, a non-prescription drug, or alcohol. The DWI statute says "or any other substance".

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:

cyphur wrote:However, we should limit you to your home while under the influence. Or at the very least, there must be a restriction against driving or operating machinery/weapons under the influence.

That is already the law. It's equally illegal to drive while under the influence of an illegal drug, a legal prescription drug, a non-prescription drug, or alcohol. The DWI statute says "or any other substance".

Kevin

Did not know that. Learn something every day!

GrillKing wrote: I have heard and happen to believe that most crime is related to attempting to acquire money for drug / alcohol purchase. I don't see how legalizing drugs makes it more likely those types will say "hey, think I'll get a job to pay for this legal drug". Again, I admittedly don't have facts to support this, I've just heard it and in my opinion, I believe it to be true.

i think i can validate your opinion with my experience. i can't think of any crook or thug i've ever dealt with that wasn't addicted to some type of narcotic. you don't find willie the local drunk breaking into houses. you do find willie the local pot head stealing car stereos.

cigarettes are legal, but dopers steal those all the time. if drugs are legalized, people will steal the drugs, rather than go through the trouble of pawning off your stuff to get the money to buy drugs illegally.

we'll never win the war on drugs, but i'll certainly do my part to fight it. that's my stuff those druggies are eyeballing.

and to get back on topic, i'm voting for rick perry. he has done a tremendous amount of good for law enforcement. whether it be passing a law, or using his veto power, he has done a good job. i'm not his greatest fan, but i'm pleased with the job he's done.

i can't stand kinky. if he was a former wrestler from the WWF, then maybe i'd consider him. because at least in that case, i could understand why he acts like a retard. he's a gimmick. i don't have time for people like that.

the other lady wanting to run under 'grandma', or whatever she tried to get on the ballot? please. you're not the first female governor of Texas. she ran that grandma bit into the ground back in the '20s. and just to show how good you thought your chances were, you went in as an independent because perry would have beaten you out. please.

and i don't know much about the other guy, so that in itself says something.

I could give a long list of reasons that would make everybody mad, so I'll just say "none of the above".

txinvestigator wrote:I do not want pot easier to get for my 10 year old daughter

So you would prefer that it continue to be sold on the streets to anyone with the cash than in stores that check ID?

It's a lot easier for an underage kid to get weed than beer.

GrillKing wrote:I have heard and happen to believe that most crime is related to attempting to acquire money for drug / alcohol purchase. I don't see how legalizing drugs makes it more likely those types will say "hey, think I'll get a job to pay for this legal drug". Again, I admittedly don't have facts to support this, I've just heard it and in my opinion, I believe it to be true.

Why would they pay for it? Once legalized, anybody with a couple of flowerpots could feed their addiction for the cost of a box of MIracle-Gro.

Tobacco costs next to nothing when bought in bulk, (a little under $1/ounce last time I bought it - for reference, an ounce will last about a day for even a fairly heavy smoker) and yet it can be picky about growing conditions, takes months to dry and cure, and can easily be ruined by mistakes in the process. Stoners have been preparing weed in their closets for years, and it grows anywhere. Even if people decided to buy it, rather than grow it, I can't see a free market getting the price up over $1/ounce.

Now, look at a smoker in heavy withdrawal. Why don't we see anybody stealing stereos to trade for cigarettes? Simple; even with the government meddling, it's still only about $3-$4 per pack to feed the addiction. Nearly anybody can beg or borrow that pretty quickly with no risk of arrest.

txinvestigator wrote: Agreed. With deference to the death of Ann Richards, I don't think Texans are ready for another Older woman for Governor.

I see... so, because Ann Richards was anti-CHL, and she was a woman, then you are saying that ALL women are anti-CHL?

If Ann Richards had been born with dark skin instead of XX chromosones, then would you say "I don't think Texans are ready for another black man for Governor"?

You have been so quick to point out others use of racial descriptions on this board. Surely it cannot be that you are also biased?

I'm curious about "Grandma's" views on 2A. That will really help in my decision making process. As a school teacher, I look for candidates that aren't intent on making my life harder. So many of them have threatened to take away insurance, benefits, and our conference period. The current conference period isn't even enough: I spent 12 hours at school on Monday and Friday. That's what it took for me to get my work done. It's a big job, and teachers just don't have enough people backing them.
(Then again, we tend to be too complacent and we dont' tend to stand up for ourselves very much.)

Venus Pax wrote:I'm curious about "Grandma's" views on 2A.

I strongly suspect that her positions on anything are determined by a wetted finger held aloft in the breeze.

Rather like her surname du jour.

Kevin

Meeee toooo. Politician of opportunity. KB that is the very way I tell the folks at the church. Lick my finger & hold it up then say check the way the political wind blows. You are in the x ring on that one.

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist54/hupp.htm

i vote her supreme ruler of the United States.

Venus Pax wrote:I'm curious about "Grandma's" views on 2A. That will really help in my decision making process.

Venus Pax,
FWIW, Long ago, on another thread on this forum, someone reported contacting "Grandma", or at least her campaign staff, asking this question. The response reported was typical politician speak -- IOW, throw out a bunch of words that do not really answer the question (which then brings up more questions)
I wish I could remember who posted it & where.
Thanx,
TraCoun

Chris wrote:http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist54/hupp.htm

i vote her supreme ruler of the United States.

Too bad she's not running for governor. And worse, retiring from politics at the end of her term.

Chris wrote:http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist54/hupp.htm

i vote her supreme ruler of the United States.

I don't want to be subject to any "supreme ruler", and I'm pretty certain that SGH doesn't want to be a supreme ruler. If she was willing to accept such a post, I wouldn't like her nearly as much as I do.

But, I second your sentiment. It's a shame she doesn't want to stay in office, but it speaks well of her character. Anyone who wants to be a politician is poorly suited to make decisions on our behalf. She was reluctantly thrust into the role, and has served well. God bless her in her private life.

Kevin