TO PEE OR NOT TO PEE. That is the question!

[OSBF]

this poll is useless

at least without a pee in the butt option

[BDKJMU]

The Colonel is right, as as usual, houndoog doesn't know what he is talking about. The vast majority of junkies in this country AREN'T addicted to prescription junk. According to the Dept of Health and Human Services National Survey on Drug Use and Health latest statistics (2008), of 20.1 million drug abusers in the country, 6.2 million (thats about 31%) abuse prescription drugs. The other 69% its something else.

Good ol' BD and his verbal 3-card Monte, sure as the sun comes up.

You are once again Exposed, BD.: Of course you know what you pulled, but the colonel is easily fooled, poor old fellow.

Junkies are a subset of drug abusers, i.e., all junkies are drug abusers but not all drug abusers are junkies.

Apples and apples, BD, gotta compare prescription junkies against the total number of junkies, not the total number of drug abusers.

You and your feeble attempt at diversion are dismissed. Thank you for playing, we have some lovely gifts for you.

BS- the majority of junkies AREN'T prescription drugs as you claim. The only one who has been exposed is you, unless you can provide a web link to back up your claim.

[BDKJMU]

The Colonel is right, as as usual, houndoog doesn't know what he is talking about. The vast majority of junkies in this country AREN'T addicted to prescription junk. According to the Dept of Health and Human Services National Survey on Drug Use and Health latest statistics (2008), of 20.1 million drug abusers in the country, 6.2 million (thats about 31%) abuse prescription drugs. The other 69% its something else.

Another FAIL for Huckleberry...

And while the Huckster would like to make it seem like doctors and the boogy man BIG PHARMA are to blame for any abuse of perscription drugs, the DEA says not so fast and loose with da facts...

Methods of acquiring prescription drugs for abuse include “doctor-shopping,” traditional drug-dealing, theft from pharmacies or homes, illicitly acquiring prescription drugs via the Internet, and from friends or relatives.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/pres ... sheet.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, docs and big pharma, ya say there Huckleberry....care to back up dat there claim?????

Don't hold your breath.

[BDKJMU]

Another FAIL for Huckleberry...

And while the Huckster would like to make it seem like doctors and the boogy man BIG PHARMA are to blame for any abuse of perscription drugs, the DEA says not so fast and loose with da facts...


http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/pres ... sheet.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, docs and big pharma, ya say there Huckleberry....care to back up dat there claim?????

Swing and another miss, colonel, I'm saying that just like with Tobacco, the profits are privatized and the social and health costs are passed on to you and me through the government. Nobody forced those smokers to smoke but you and me still picked up the mess.

Another fail.

-25 year, 240 billion settlement between the tobacco companies and states, thats close to 10 billion a yr, paid for by much higher cigarette prices paid for by smokers.

"Last year, states collected more than $19 billion in cigarette taxes." (those are 07' #s, many states have sharply increased their tobacco tax revenue since then).
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/120076.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

April 09' the fed increased the fed portion of the
-cigarette tax from $.39 a pack to $1 a pack (most state excise taxes are between $1-$2 per pack)
-cigars went from $.05 to $.40. (state excises taxes are additional)
-chewing tobacco went from $.19.5 to $.50 a pound (state excises taxes are additional)
-Pipe tobacco $1.09 to $2.8311 a pound (state excises taxes are additional)
-Roll-your-own tobacco $1.09 to $24.78 a pound (state excises taxes are additional)

http://www.nocigtax.com/tax-facts/federal#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba670" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 08' before this big increase the fed tax on just cigarettes (not including tax revenue from all the other tobacco products) raised over $7 billion. Add on the other tax revenue from the other tobacco products and increase the tax rates exponentially, even with a drop in the # of smokers the fed is probably getting several times that in total tobacco tax revenue.

So the fed and the states could easily be getting an annual rate of over 50 billion in tobacco tax and settlement $. So, no, the social and health costs aren't being passed on to you and me. Looks like the users of tobacco products are covering if not all most of that themselves.

Yeah, and the profits are privatized- all 7% of it:
http://www.nocigtax.com/upload/file/9/p ... -large.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

Good ol' BD and his verbal 3-card Monte, sure as the sun comes up.

You are once again Exposed, BD.: Of course you know what you pulled, but the colonel is easily fooled, poor old fellow.

Junkies are a subset of drug abusers, i.e., all junkies are drug abusers but not all drug abusers are junkies.

Apples and apples, BD, gotta compare prescription junkies against the total number of junkies, not the total number of drug abusers.

You and your feeble attempt at diversion are dismissed. Thank you for playing, we have some lovely gifts for you.

BS- the majority of junkies AREN'T prescription drugs as you claim. The only one who has been exposed is you, unless you can provide a web link to back up your claim.

Here, BD, suck on this for a while. Maybe the colonel can hold it for you so you can get the last drop.

http://www.naturalnews.com/027794_narco ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Yep, big pharma gets the profits, we clean up the mess, just as it was for decades with Big Tobacco until the people rose up..

[BDKJMU]

BS- the majority of junkies AREN'T prescription drugs as you claim. The only one who has been exposed is you, unless you can provide a web link to back up your claim.

Here, BD, suck on this for a while. Maybe the colonel can hold it for you so you can get the last drop.

http://www.naturalnews.com/027794_narco ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Yep, big pharma gets the profits, we clean up the mess, just as it was for decades with Big Tobacco until the people rose up..

Citing a Canadian study? FAIL.

Go ahead and suck on this one. NIH stats: About 80% of admissions to publicly funded
substance abuse treatment programs, 2006 weren't for prescription drug abuse:
http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/treatmenttrends.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

Here, BD, suck on this for a while. Maybe the colonel can hold it for you so you can get the last drop.

http://www.naturalnews.com/027794_narco ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Yep, big pharma gets the profits, we clean up the mess, just as it was for decades with Big Tobacco until the people rose up..

Citing a Canadian study? FAIL.

Go ahead and suck on this one. NIH stats: About 80% of admissions to publicly funded
substance abuse treatment programs, 2006 weren't for prescription drug abuse:
http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/treatmenttrends.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apples and apples, BD. Evidently you're unclear on the concept, so here's one your way, 'merican study:

http://www.prescription-drug-abuse.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

from the link, (typed extra-slow) - "Prescription drugs are the second most commonly abused category of drugs, behind marijuana, and ahead of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs".



Thanks, BD, you're my new favorite bitch. Don't stop swallowing, it's what sets you apart from the other gals.

[CID1990]

To me Cap'n Welfare is much like the old driver's license. It's a privilege, not a right and you have some basic hoops that need to be jumped through to receive it.

The companies do not fall into that same category for me as they are supposed to be doing something productive for the largesse they are receiving so in that sense the largesse is "earned" isn't it? In that case it should be up to the company themselves if they want to do the drug tests.

Well, Ursus, my experiences are from my 18 years in corporate America in which I witnessed much sucking at the public teat, most of which, in my humble opinion, was rather smarmy. For example, when I worked for a major cereal company in the mid 90's, they lobbied for and accepted mountains of federal and state money to fund training at a new plant in New Mexico. They even threatened to pull out of the state if they didn't get it.

My beef is that this company was a multi-multi-billion dollar operation who could afford the cost of training their people and all they were doing was holding a gun to the two levels of governments' heads. Just another example, to me, of captialistic abuse. That state and federal money could have been spent elsewhere.

You're much more likable when you give reasoned, well-thought out responses, you turd.

[houndawg]

Well, Ursus, my experiences are from my 18 years in corporate America in which I witnessed much sucking at the public teat, most of which, in my humble opinion, was rather smarmy. For example, when I worked for a major cereal company in the mid 90's, they lobbied for and accepted mountains of federal and state money to fund training at a new plant in New Mexico. They even threatened to pull out of the state if they didn't get it.

My beef is that this company was a multi-multi-billion dollar operation who could afford the cost of training their people and all they were doing was holding a gun to the two levels of governments' heads. Just another example, to me, of captialistic abuse. That state and federal money could have been spent elsewhere.

You're much more likable when you give reasoned, well-thought out responses, you turd.

But he's much more creative without the Lithium, like Jaco.

[Cap'n Cat]

Well, Ursus, my experiences are from my 18 years in corporate America in which I witnessed much sucking at the public teat, most of which, in my humble opinion, was rather smarmy. For example, when I worked for a major cereal company in the mid 90's, they lobbied for and accepted mountains of federal and state money to fund training at a new plant in New Mexico. They even threatened to pull out of the state if they didn't get it.

My beef is that this company was a multi-multi-billion dollar operation who could afford the cost of training their people and all they were doing was holding a gun to the two levels of governments' heads. Just another example, to me, of captialistic abuse. That state and federal money could have been spent elsewhere.

You're much more likable when you give reasoned, well-thought out responses, you turd.

Why, thank you, CID. It's my real persona peeking out every now and then.

[houndawg]

You're much more likable when you give reasoned, well-thought out responses, you turd.

Don't do it Cap'n, it's a trap.



Why, thank you, CID. It's my real persona peeking out every now and then.

[BDKJMU]

Citing a Canadian study? FAIL.

Go ahead and suck on this one. NIH stats: About 80% of admissions to publicly funded
substance abuse treatment programs, 2006 weren't for prescription drug abuse:
http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/treatmenttrends.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apples and apples, BD. Evidently you're unclear on the concept, so here's one your way, 'merican study:

http://www.prescription-drug-abuse.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

from the link, (typed extra-slow) - "Prescription drugs are the second most commonly abused category of drugs, behind marijuana, and ahead of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs".



Thanks, BD, you're my new favorite bitch. Don't stop swallowing, it's what sets you apart from the other gals.

FAiL. Earlier link I gave from HHS showed prescription drug abusers were only 20 percent of drug abusers. Last link I gave showed prescription drugs are only a fraction of admissions to substance abuse treatment programs which both show your original claim of the majority of junkies being prescription drug abusersas false. Looks like your the bitch, but sorry jack, you'll have to get one of your lib donk guy friends to suck you off

.

[houndawg]

Apples and apples, BD. Evidently you're unclear on the concept, so here's one your way, 'merican study:

http://www.prescription-drug-abuse.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

from the link, (typed extra-slow) - "Prescription drugs are the second most commonly abused category of drugs, behind marijuana, and ahead of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs".



Thanks, BD, you're my new favorite bitch. Don't stop swallowing, it's what sets you apart from the other gals.

FAiL. Earlier link I gave from HHS showed prescription drug abusers were only 20 percent of drug abusers. Last link I gave showed prescription drugs are only a fraction of admissions to substance abuse treatment programs which both show your original claim of the majority of junkies being prescription drug abusersas false. Looks like your the bitch, but sorry jack, you'll have to get one of your lib donk guy friends to suck you off
.

Sorry, old son, but my link is crystal clear on the subject: more junkies use prescription junk than heroin.

I already straightened you out on your falsely equating junkies and drug abusers, I shouldn't have to remind you about it every other day.

Now run along to church, Father Murphy may need his candle polished before the service.

[native]

FAiL. Earlier link I gave from HHS showed prescription drug abusers were only 20 percent of drug abusers. Last link I gave showed prescription drugs are only a fraction of admissions to substance abuse treatment programs which both show your original claim of the majority of junkies being prescription drug abusersas false. Looks like your the bitch, but sorry jack, you'll have to get one of your lib donk guy friends to suck you off
.

Sorry, old son, but my link is crystal clear on the subject: more junkies use prescription junk than heroin.

I already straightened you out on your falsely equating junkies and drug abusers, I shouldn't have to remind you about it every other day.

Now run along to church, Father Murphy may need his candle polished before the service.

Maybe we should at least acknowledge honestly that dawg has far more direct and personal experience with drug abuse than most of the rest of us, BDK.

[mainejeff]

Welfare recipients should be banned from having more children.......that is the biggest problem.

[BDKJMU]

FAiL. Earlier link I gave from HHS showed prescription drug abusers were only 20 percent of drug abusers. Last link I gave showed prescription drugs are only a fraction of admissions to substance abuse treatment programs which both show your original claim of the majority of junkies being prescription drug abusersas false. Looks like your the bitch, but sorry jack, you'll have to get one of your lib donk guy friends to suck you off
.

Sorry, old son, but my link is crystal clear on the subject: more junkies use prescription junk than heroin.

I already straightened you out on your falsely equating junkies and drug abusers, I shouldn't have to remind you about it every other day.

Now run along to church, Father Murphy may need his candle polished before the service.

Obviouly this is above your limited comprehension level, but my link proved your original premise that the "vast majority of junkies ("a narcotics peddler or abuser" according to Free Merriam Webster dicttionary)
In this country are addicted to prescription junk" was false no matter how much you try to change the goal posts.

[houndawg]

Sorry, old son, but my link is crystal clear on the subject: more junkies use prescription junk than heroin.

I already straightened you out on your falsely equating junkies and drug abusers, I shouldn't have to remind you about it every other day.

Now run along to church, Father Murphy may need his candle polished before the service.

Obviouly this is above your limited comprehension level, but my link proved your original premise that the "vast majority of junkies ("a narcotics peddler or abuser" according to Free Merriam Webster dicttionary)
In this country are addicted to prescription junk" was false no matter how much you try to change the goal posts.

How many times do I have to school you about your false comparisons BD? Apples and apples.

Yes, BD, a junkie is a narcotics peddler or abuser. Gold star for you and go to the front of the class. Narcotics by definition are "any psychoactive compound with morphine like effects".

Opiods. That's we're talkin' bout, BD, and the most abused of them are the prescription ones, see my earlier link, which proves that my original premise was correct.

In short, old friend, it's you that keeps trying to move the goal posts with your false comparisons of apples and oranges.

Jesus, BD, a quick look around your own neighborhood would reveal a lot more prescription junkies than heroin junkies. I'm surprised that you chose this point to fcvk a fly's ass about, the hate must run deep .....

[BDKJMU]

Obviouly this is above your limited comprehension level, but my link proved your original premise that the "vast majority of junkies ("a narcotics peddler or abuser" according to Free Merriam Webster dicttionary)
In this country are addicted to prescription junk" was false no matter how much you try to change the goal posts.

How many times do I have to school you about your false comparisons BD? Apples and apples.

Yes, BD, a junkie is a narcotics peddler or abuser. Gold star for you and go to the front of the class. Narcotics by definition are "any psychoactive compound with morphine like effects".

Opiods. That's we're talkin' bout, BD, and the most abused of them are the prescription ones, see my earlier link, which proves that my original premise was correct.

In short, old friend, it's you that keeps trying to move the goal posts with your false comparisons of apples and oranges.

Jesus, BD, a quick look around your own neighborhood would reveal a lot more prescription junkies than heroin junkies. I'm surprised that you chose this point to fcvk a fly's ass about, the hate must run deep .....

You're talking about schooling when you're the one being schooled.

I'll try to use an analogy since you seem to have such a low comprehension level.

In 40-50 years whites will no longer be a majority of the US population:

There will still be more whites than blacks, just like there are more prescription drug junkies than coke junkies.

There will still be more whites than hispanics, just like there are more prescription drug junkies than meth junkies.

There will still be more whites than Asians, just like there are more prescription drug junkies than heroin junkies.

But whites won't be a majority of the population, just like prescription drug junkies aren't the majority of junkies.

Being the largest subset or in the 2nd largest subset does not always = a majority. Which means what you 1st said on the 2nd page of this thread:

the vast majority of junkies in this country are addicted to prescription junk, your colonelness.

is false. No matter how much you try to argue it, say its comparing apples to oranges won't change that fact. The more you argue about it, the dumber you keep making yourself look. But if you want to keep it up, come right ahead....

[houndawg]

BD, I've already schooled you twice about getting your definitions straight, you have to come up with a different trick now.

Meth abusers aren't junkies, nor are cocaine abusers, by definition, BD. Maybe if I keep reposting the definition that you brought over from webster enough times you'll start to get it?

One more time, old boy - a) A junkie by definition is an abuser of narcotics. b) Narcotics by definition are psychoactive compounds that produce a morphine-like effect.

From http://www.prescription-drug-abuse.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; : Prescription drugs are the second most commonly abused category of drugs, behind marijuana, and ahead of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drugs.

Schooling you repeatedly on your one trick is growing tiresome, BD. Ciao.


(What you should have said, and I'm a little disappointed that you didn't see it since it's right in front of your face, is that not all prescription drugs are narcotics either. But, hey, I didn't take you to raise.)

[BDKJMU]

BD, I've already schooled you twice about getting your definitions straight, you have to come up with a different trick now.

Meth abusers aren't junkies, nor are cocaine abusers, by definition, BD. Maybe if I keep reposting the definition that you brought over from webster enough times you'll start to get it?

One more time, old boy - a) A junkie by definition is an abuser of narcotics. b) Narcotics by definition are psychoactive compounds that produce a morphine-like effect.

From http://www.prescription-drug-abuse.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; : Prescription drugs are the second most commonly abused category of drugs, behind marijuana, and ahead of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drugs.

Schooling you repeatedly on your one trick is growing tiresome, BD. Ciao.


(What you should have said, and I'm a little disappointed that you didn't see it since it's right in front of your face, is that not all prescription drugs are narcotics either. But, hey, I didn't take you to raise.)

Yes, technically meth, which is a Schedule II psychostimulant, non narcotic with a narcotic side-effect. WRONG on cocaine according to the DEA, as it is a Schedule II NARCOTIC Controlled Substance.

The definition of a junkie as an abuser of "narcotics" isn't a universal one. Merriam has it as such, but 3 commonly used dictionaries out there don't include narcotics in the definition:

Oxford:
Junkie: "A drug addict"
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entr ... _us1260317" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Macmillan:
unkie: "A drug addict"
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/thes ... can/junkie" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cambridge:
http://dictionaries.cambridge.org/defin ... 1+0&dict=A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"a person who regularly takes and is dependent on illegal drugs, esp. heroin"

So looks like I'm still right.

Tschüs

[houndawg]

BD, I've already schooled you twice about getting your definitions straight, you have to come up with a different trick now.

Meth abusers aren't junkies, nor are cocaine abusers, by definition, BD. Maybe if I keep reposting the definition that you brought over from webster enough times you'll start to get it?

One more time, old boy - a) A junkie by definition is an abuser of narcotics. b) Narcotics by definition are psychoactive compounds that produce a morphine-like effect.

From http://www.prescription-drug-abuse.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; : Prescription drugs are the second most commonly abused category of drugs, behind marijuana, and ahead of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drugs.

Schooling you repeatedly on your one trick is growing tiresome, BD. Ciao.


(What you should have said, and I'm a little disappointed that you didn't see it since it's right in front of your face, is that not all prescription drugs are narcotics either. But, hey, I didn't take you to raise.)

Yes, technically meth, which is a Schedule II psychostimulant, non narcotic with a narcotic side-effect. WRONG on cocaine according to the DEA, as it is a Schedule II NARCOTIC Controlled Substance.

The definition of a junkie as an abuser of "narcotics" isn't a universal one. Merriam has it as such, but 3 commonly used dictionaries out there don't include narcotics in the definition:

Oxford:
Junkie: "A drug addict"
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entr ... _us1260317" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Macmillan:
unkie: "A drug addict"
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/thes ... can/junkie" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cambridge:
http://dictionaries.cambridge.org/defin ... 1+0&dict=A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"a person who regularly takes and is dependent on illegal drugs, esp. heroin"

So looks like I'm still right.

Tschüs

There you go again. Moving the goalposts.

You wanted links, you got links. Links that clearly demonstrated that I am right, according to your definition. Having been punked on your own terms you now want to change the terms. A clear indication that I'm right.
Ciao, BD.

[BDKJMU]

Yes, technically meth, which is a Schedule II psychostimulant, non narcotic with a narcotic side-effect. WRONG on cocaine according to the DEA, as it is a Schedule II NARCOTIC Controlled Substance.

The definition of a junkie as an abuser of "narcotics" isn't a universal one. Merriam has it as such, but 3 commonly used dictionaries out there don't include narcotics in the definition:

Oxford:
Junkie: "A drug addict"
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entr ... _us1260317" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Macmillan:
unkie: "A drug addict"
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/thes ... can/junkie" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cambridge:
http://dictionaries.cambridge.org/defin ... 1+0&dict=A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"a person who regularly takes and is dependent on illegal drugs, esp. heroin"

So looks like I'm still right.

Tschüs

There you go again. Moving the goalposts.

You wanted links, you got links. Links that clearly demonstrated that I am right, according to your definition. Having been punked on your own terms you now want to change the terms. A clear indication that I'm right.
Ciao, BD.

The only clear indication is that you've been schooled. Class over.

[houndawg]

Thanks, I've always wanted to bang a teacher.