Page 1 of 416
Posted on June 19 at 6:15 p.m.
Simpleton, my RA told us what weekends we could have keggers. Our hall all chipped in and bought him a very nice bong at the end of the year. But ultimately, there was too much control and people in the dorm were still getting written up for drinking even though literally everybody drank and had alcohol in their rooms. They wanted out and to live on their own in IV. 18 and 19 year olds move to college for a reason, they are tired of living with their parents and not having any freedom.
The dorms were like a training ground, we went out to IV and figured out what was going on and figured out how to move there and most importantly WHO TO MOVE THERE WITH. People were happy to live in IV, and it was good to live near there and figure it out a little bit and have a good group of friends alongside before being thrusted in and having to live there without knowing anybody. They wouldn't have to place as many random students with each other in private apartment buildings where there is little consequence for mistreating roommates. If the freshman and CC students were largely confined to the dorms where they could be more flexible and have more actionable policies while they are living with people they don't know, while they make friends, and then move out to IV as they transitioned to UCSB or as their 2nd year CC student.
When the Elliot Rodger thing happened I had no idea they had apartments that placed random students together, I thought you had to go on craigslist and find roommates. Maybe they have done that all along, but certainly it is more prevalent as so many CC students end up moving there without knowing anybody.
The comradery that comes with the dorm situation, and going into IV is probably the biggest difference between what you and I experienced and what is going on today. You cared about the people who you lived with and you trusted them more. You watched out for each other, and that translated into watching out for other people in the community. Having new students just move into IV willie nillie with no friends makes it more of a free for all. They make friends quickly, but haven't known them long enough to trust them.
I'm torn on the CC situation, but I have advocated putting more of THEM in dorms. A lot of them will be transferring to UCSB anyway. Why not put the CC students in FT (aka Santa Catalina)? I know Tropicana is already a CC dorm - they need more - FT is perfect because it is sooooo far from campus and there is a bus stop right in front that would be perfect for a new express bus going from FT to CC - all the IV kids who go to CC could use that bus stop as well.
Anyway, the goal is to get more upper class students who have better and closer relationships to live in IV so they can watch out for each other and keep IV the way they want it and the new students will act more as guests.
On Isla Vista: Investor's Paradise
Posted on June 19 at 5:47 p.m.
Blah's primary concern seems to be theft by drug users.
Theft should be illegal, even if the money is being stolen to buy drugs (legal or illegal). However, you should consider that the actual cost to produce most illegal drugs is EXTREMELY low. The reason they are expensive on the street is because the risk to produce, import and sell the drugs is very high as there is a very high risk involved in getting caught and going to prison. This is a result of the war on drugs.
I think you would be pretty happy to know that if drugs were legal, they would cost almost nothing. Addicts who are inclined to steal might not have to steal at all to fund their drug habit, or they would have to steal much less to fund their drug habit.
Additionally, due to their addictive nature many individuals end up spending a large portion of their livelihood funding a habit that should be very inexpensive. This in and of itself is part of the reason why drugs ruin lives - people who could otherwise function fine end up losing their income, the ability to pay for their personal expenses, car, house, significant others, family and all because the cost of their addiction is so high. The cost of addiction for many drugs and some people is already high as it is, by expanding the financial burden you are really just putting the burden of addiction on everyone.
Now, you are probably thinking that legalizing drugs will increase the use of dangerous drugs. In Portugal, after 14 years of decriminalization of all drugs, drug use has gone down:
Additionally, drugs would be much safer if legal. You could sue a supplier of drugs if they committed fraud and sold a drug that was misrepresented or cut with other drugs or chemicals. Try suing your drug dealer for cutting your drugs with dangerous chemicals in our current legal system.. Hah.
You may also think that legalizing drugs will give greater access to children. On the contrary, most drug dealers go to high school and have access to kids of all ages. Most kids report they have easier access to drugs than to alcohol. This is because drug dealers don't ask for ID. If drugs were legal, you could still regulate that they not be sold to minors and much like alcohol you would find that they would have less access than they do now.
FYI, states that have legalized medical cannabis have not seen an increase in cannabis use among underage teens:
That is just one more blow to the false claims we have heard from prohibitionists in the past.
filmlover, blah - I invite you to the future - stop living in the lies and propaganda of the past.
On Five Teens Captured After Escaping Los Prietos Boys Camp
Posted on June 19 at 4:18 p.m.
I think the students would prefer to keep IV as it is. If they want to live in the dorms, there are a lot of dorms. Everybody I knew in the dorms wanted to move to IV the next year.
Posted on June 19 at 4:16 p.m.
"Boy, I see why you are confused. In a previous post, I was not appreciating and thanking you for being smart, kind and honest. I was talking about the others that have posted."
No, you were thanking people who had a good head on their shoulders, enjoyed life and are smart, kind and honest. That's me.
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense. The drug war causes far more violence than drugs cause - this is very clear and easy to see. Gang violence, cartels, police enforcement is the major cause of violence related to drugs and all those things are due exclusively to the war on drugs. In fact, legal alcohol causes more violence than all other drugs combined if you don't include violence that is caused by the war on drugs itself.
The war on drugs causes higher taxes, not drugs.
"Get on board with a responsible life"
I'm a very responsible person. Not that doing illegal drugs is necessarily irresponsible other than it is putting yourself in danger of being kidnapped by the state and branded with a criminal record, but I haven't actually done any illegal drugs in the last 6 months. I've never been addicted to or a regular user of illegal drugs, besides cannabis, which I have used legally for the last 10+ years.
But if you stick around here long enough, you will actually find out that I believe in freedom in all aspects of life. You don't believe in freedom and you need to admit that to yourself.
You also don't think logically - you should ask yourself why somebody who uses these drugs you claim to hate is able to think and convey logical arguments while all you do is talk about the lowest common denominator and cannot separate individuals from groups. Specifically, you keep taking problems that are created by the war on drugs and saying that they are problems that are created by drugs. You need to separate the two. There is a difference between people who are violent and people who use drugs. Some people who don't use drugs are violent, some people who use drugs are non-violent. Then there are people who use drugs and are violent. I am for putting violent people in prison, and that is a moral, consistent and principled position. Your position is not moral, consistent or principled because non-violent people end up in prison.
Posted on June 19 at 3:29 p.m.
filmlover - you are so completely wrong.
"Where there is a druggie, there will be a drug pusher, a drug lord, violence, hurt innocent people, cops, courts, tax expense, yadda, yadda, yadda. "
All of those things are a result of the war on drugs. You are complaining about things that result from the policies you advocate and are not a result of the drugs themselves.
"Even then, you will have to lock a bunch of them up again."
Go ahead, lock up violent offenders, people who steal and take others rights. There is no reason to lock-up a non-violent drug user. Pretty much everybody uses drugs whether it is caffeine or alcohol or whatever, it's not up to the state to determine how we run our lives. It's not up to the state to be our nanny. They are there to protect our rights as individuals. Your entire philosophy smashes that whole concept.
"and stealing tax payer dollars you doof! You are part of the drug war! You are causing harm. You are stealing from others and not honest about it even to yourself. Do you get it now? It's you. You are a big part of the problem."
I have no idea what you're talking about - I have nearly half my income stolen by the government every year, I've never stolen a dime from anybody in my life, why are you accusing me of all these things?
"This makes me appreciate all the people with a good head on their shoulders all the more. Thanks you to all who are living the good life, rich, poor, and in between, that are smart, kind and honest. :)"
Ok, there you seem to be describing me. I'm confused.
Posted on June 19 at 3:19 p.m.
No spacey, the problem is that people want nanny government to protect them from everything and they expect the government to do their due diligence for them. Guess what? The government is really inefficient at this task, they spend way too much money and they are largely ineffective. The biggest problem is that they create a false sense of security among the public that they are being taken care of when they aren't.
When people start discarding that attitude and start taking responsibility for themselves, then there will be less companies trying to take advantage of people because people will actually look out for themselves and maybe do some of the due diligence themselves through independent agencies.
When people start discarding that attitude, they will look toward the market for solutions. We don't need a "Consumer Guide" magazine so much anymore, we have the internet. A quick google search of CarMax reviews could turn up an article or any number of complaints against the company.
Maybe some recalls aren't safety related - maybe some person out there wants a really inexpensive car and doesn't car that the glove compartment handle might be defective in 1 out of 80 cars. Maybe they can save money by getting the car that hasn't had the recall work done.
When buying the car, if someone asks if there is a recall on that car, or has gone through the trouble of determining it themselves and CarMax lies, they can sue them. That's fine. If they are selling cars that they claim do not have any outstanding recalls then you can sue them - that's fine. But the money should go to the VICTIMS. You want the government to go after CarMax and give a bunch of money to the government. It's like a child hitting another child and getting a spanking from his mom instead of having his mom force him to apologize and make things right with the child they hurt.
On CarMax Accused of Selling Unsafe Cars with Open Recalls
Posted on June 19 at 2:42 p.m.
Oh ya, and The Statue of Liberty faces 33 degrees east from south; ala 33rd degree mason.
On Which woman belongs on the new $10 bill?
Posted on June 19 at 2:41 p.m.
The Statue of Liberty is actually a replica of the Babylonian goddess "Ishtar" the Mother of Harlots and the goddess of Freedom/Liberty. It's a Masonic thing.
I voted Rosa Parks - Civil Disobedience FTW!!!
Posted on June 19 at 1:28 p.m.
Why does the state need to go after them if consumers are aware of the problem?
I think the first amendment is a much better solution - write articles, tell your friends, inform people that some percentage of the cars they sell are under recall. Then if they do choose to shop there, they can do their due diligence before buying, or they can shop elsewhere.
In the mean time, CarMax can attempt to get a better system in place to ameliorate the problem. They can use their first amendment right to inform customers when they believe they have fixed the problem, and consumer advocates can help verify their claim.
Posted on June 18 at 2:52 p.m.
You are truly a master debater blah.