Click this dude http://www.beamin1.com/msi/

     

This is the latest video of the newest "Monster of Montauk" discovery made may the 5th in Southold, NY this is the North Fork of Long Island for those that don't know.

     

After reading Andrew Blanksteins original story Squatters evicted from channel 13 I got to wondering why it wouldn't be more cost effective to let them stay there and clean up the mess they made, here's the basis of the idea.


Maybe instead of using a bunch of cops to clean these places out constantly they could use 1 cop at the door and while the owners aren't using it homeless people could.

For the city the benefits are obvious, less crime elsewhere if homeless people know they have a safe place to stay, less police manpower chasing people down and clearing them out of other places etc etc the list is quite long potentially.

Also, before you start saying it won't work, consider that they were using it already,hence this story, they probably still are, and they almost certainly will again.

For the property owner, the city can let them not pay any taxes on the property until such a time as they take possession of the building again and if they are smart, they(building owners) put 1-2 people there as staff to organize the maintenance and care of the property by the people that stay there(homeless).

Shame I don't live there I'd work it out myself.




What do you think ? Doesn't it make sense to not only get them to clean up their own mess, but to help them get a decent place to stay, so that they can "clean up" a little themselves and maybe get a little self esteem going on... who knows, maybe they could wind up with a job and a real home again?

Tell me what you think.

     

HA! Dook choked bigtime tonight...in what was, in reality one of the worst performances of any team of this years tourney...Well, I can't say I'm sorry to see it...

GO HEELS!

     

Ok, regardless of which side of this particular fence your on...take a moment to think about things a little differently.

First on the pro-legalization front, pot is widely known to help sufferers of chronic pain -this, whether the govt supports it or not is obviously true, as millions of pain sufferers will attest to, so, no reason to even go any further on that.

On the anti-legalization front, one of the largest arguments one hears is that pot is a "starter drug" that will invariably lead the user to harder drugs, but what you don�t hear in this argument is why pot is a starter drug.

First I'll comment on the original statement, is pot a starter drug?
Yes, without a doubt, purchasing pot and using it as it as done currently will MOST likely lead the user to at least have opportunities to do harder drugs, and probably be pressured to do so.
Now as to why this is the case..... Simple, its illegal.

Really, that�s the ONLY reason pot is a starter drug.
How many alcoholics do you know that HAVE to go and buy their booze from people that are risking everything they own and criminal prosecution, just to provide them with the booze?
None.
The people selling pot are on average are going to be selling other drugs as well and it seems that often, particularly in larger cities to be their main source of income, therefore its in his best interest to get his customer into the harder and more expensive drugs, this is his job, this is what he does for a living, we can assume he�s pretty good at it.

Ergo drug dealer.

Now, take pot off of the streets, and put it in the ABC store or pharmacy where it can be purchased safely without fear of arrest ,or grown in your home for personal consumption, then it is no longer a starter drug, because you no longer have the exposure to other drugs
unless its by choice.

So there�s that argument fairly well busted, next we have the people that simply think that pot is bad for you so you shouldn�t do it.

What happened to personal choice?

As has been previously mentioned, alcohol is widely thought of, and statistically supported to be a much more dangerous drug in ALL areas, level of impairment, long term organ damage, death rates in automobile accidents etc etc..



Millions of dollars a year are spent, both privately, and through taxpayer dollars on alcohol related training, healthcare, deaths, insurance rates etc etc....

BUT alcohol also puts huge amounts of money into the govt's coffers to fund all the pork they try to pass off as "governing".

Simply put, pot is a much less dangerous drug than alcohol, or 90% of the things you can get over the counter at your local drugstore or hardware store(The other 10% being band-Aids, bottled water, and camera film).

People are going to get high, the question is is the govt. going to continue to suppress it and spend millions of dollars annually combating it and prosecuting its users, or are they going to start listening to the people en masse and put things like marijuana on a ballot and let the people be heard.


What we are seeing today in our inner citys with gang violence, murder rates, homelessness,robbery etc are no different than
Al capone and all the others like him that smuggled alcohol during prohibition, the gangs have to fight the law, as well as each other.

"A government for the people, by the people" is what we are supposed to have, "A government for the government, by the government" is what we have today, and until people start thinking with the compassionate parts of their minds instead of the "me" part, that�s what "we" shall have.

     10.0 - 1 vote