Jump to content

OC Register: Former Angels employee indicted in connection with death of Tyler Skaggs


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Its in meth and coke, too, not just heroin.

But whereas this is a fair take, theres some hiccups.

If it was legal, and easier to obtain, skaggs also could have needed increasingly more and more of it.... i go to ODs several times a week, with no fent, just heroin.

The other problems is that sure, skaggs could afford his habit... the majority cant. Its the problems those people cause why drugs are illegal.

Society could care less if you ruin your life, or kill yourself. Its the problems you cause for society. IE, you drive drunk, crash into a tree, make your insides explode to the outside, meh, did it to yourself. But if instead of a tree, you hit another person....

 

Thats why we cant drive drunk.

Understand that I'm ultra libertarian in these matters, scout. I believe in complete legalization of all drugs, prostitution, sex of any kind between consenting adults, etc. 

Now when one's actions impact others, I agree. Drunk driving should be illegal, clearly.

But here's the question: Does the criminalization of drugs actually reduce the problem "these people" cause? We can't know unless we try other options, but what we do know is that the problems haven't gotten better - they've gotten worse, at least as far as drug overdoses are concerned. And we can also look to countries who have taken different routes such as decriminalization, and found varying degrees of success.

Remember also that we're a nation that has only recently started to legalize marijuana, a "drug" that causes almost zero deaths per year, but we glorify alcohol, which kills 88,000 people a year.

My larger issue with this punitive approach of punishing someone like Kay is that it ignores the vast web that creates such situations. Not just the criminalization of drugs which generates drug trafficking and dangerous (fentanyl-laced) hybrids, but over-prescription of opioids, and other societal factors, like viewing drug addiction as a crime rather than a medical condition, which makes getting good treatment very tough. Not even mentioning Skaggs' responsibility. Kay is just a scapegoat, really.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marijuana itself is a mild drug, sort of. With the enhanced quality it's a lot more powerful than when I was younger.

But people who do drugs hang with a circle of friends that also use.

At some point they are exposed to other drugs by others. Gives them more opportunity to use or experiment with them. 

Where as if you weren't exposed to it the odds of doing so go down.

So IMO Marijuana is a gateway drug.

Edited by Redondo
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Understand that I'm ultra libertarian in these matters, scout. I believe in complete legalization of all drugs, prostitution, sex of any kind between consenting adults, etc. 

Now when one's actions impact others, I agree. Drunk driving should be illegal, clearly.

But here's the question: Does the criminalization of drugs actually reduce the problem "these people" cause? We can't know unless we try other options, but what we do know is that the problems haven't gotten better - they've gotten worse, at least as far as drug overdoses are concerned. And we can also look to countries who have taken different routes such as decriminalization, and found varying degrees of success.

Remember also that we're a nation that has only recently started to legalize marijuana, a "drug" that causes almost zero deaths per year, but we glorify alcohol, which kills 88,000 people a year.

My larger issue with this punitive approach of punishing someone like Kay is that it ignores the vast web that creates such situations. Not just the criminalization of drugs which generates drug trafficking and dangerous (fentanyl-laced) hybrids, but over-prescription of opioids, and other societal factors, like viewing drug addiction as a crime rather than a medical condition, which makes getting good treatment very tough. Not even mentioning Skaggs' responsibility. Kay is just a scapegoat, really.

 

Believe it or not, Im actually pretty firmly libertarian in regards to the "crimes" you mentioned as well. Prostitution is silly. Theres no difference between paying a woman for sex, or paying a lot of money to have sex with the woman on a date. Weed should be legal if booze is (i cant even remember the last time a stoner caused a problem i had to go to, versus the every 15 minutes with drunk people).

Id be all for building a "hamsterdam" compound in the desert, where addicts could go and spend their lives getting as high as they wanted.... if they couldnt leave there. Meaning they couldnt troll out and start breaking into cars and homes to score their next baggie. But, how would we pay for such a shangri-la? 

The other thing ill point out is that California has about the most liberal drug laws in the union. And hobos are now a protected class, pretty much. The result is we have more than half of the nations homeless now. Theyre moving here specific because of the situation we created.

And it isnt helping them, at all. Its hurting the tax payers in a big way, though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Believe it or not, Im actually pretty firmly libertarian in regards to the "crimes" you mentioned as well. Prostitution is silly. Theres no difference between paying a woman for sex, or paying a lot of money to have sex with the woman on a date. Weed should be legal if booze is (i cant even remember the last time a stoner caused a problem i had to go to, versus the every 15 minutes with drunk people).

Id be all for building a "hamsterdam" compound in the desert, where addicts could go and spend their lives getting as high as they wanted.... if they couldnt leave there. Meaning they couldnt troll out and start breaking into cars and homes to score their next baggie. But, how would we pay for such a shangri-la? 

The other thing ill point out is that California has about the most liberal drug laws in the union. And hobos are now a protected class, pretty much. The result is we have more than half of the nations homeless now. Theyre moving here specific because of the situation we created.

And it isnt helping them, at all. Its hurting the tax payers in a big way, though. 

If a man or woman(99% of the time it's a man) is paying for all of the dates, food, drinks, entertainment etc and is having sex, it's a loophole in the system and is legalized prostitution. The only difference is instead of handing them money for sex(illegal) they buy them food and drinks and movie tickets, gifts etc(legal).

I will go ahead and guess that many guys here got their current wives this way. What I mean by this is when they dated their now future wives, they(the man)paid for everything. The woman might have reached for their credit card or cash but society/dating coaches etc teach men that if they let a woman pay her half(not even the whole bill just what they ate or date or their movie ticket etc), they will not see that woman ever again. Many women say this is true and that the reach/offer to pay her half is a test and if the man accepts the offer, he will not get a second/ third whatever date. Women lose nothing financially while men do.

Doesn't matter that more and more women are working and making more and more money. Men still are expected by MOST women(not all)but MOST to pay for every date, every trip, everything. Once in awhile, the woman might buy the guy a coffee or pack of gum but it's pretty much always one sided.

Basically the rule is penis pays. To me, if a man is paying for everything on a date, the woman is doing him a favor. She's like "I will grace you with my presence as long as you are paying for everything."

I thought dating was about 2 people getting to know each other and seeing if things can move beyond a physical attraction. Boy was I wrong. It's quite fascinating that you can have sex by paying for her food and entertainment and bills but if you hand her money to have sex, you get arrested. 

Dating is backwards in my opinion. When you were first getting to know someone you shouldn't be spending a lot of money on them. You both should should be paying your way and seeing if the other person is worth investing in. Later on when you both really know you are into each other and like each other or maybe even love each other, you can then start paying for the other person and buying them gifts Etc and the woman would buy him stuff, pay for him too.

I will buy my friends and family things and treat them for dinner etc but it's because I know them and have for a long time so I know they are worth it.

I have friends that told me they simply got married because they invested too much money into their wives. I had one friend that dated a woman for a year and she told him that any engagement ring her bought her if he was thinking about marrying her would have to cost double what her ex husband paid for that ring. EX spent $2500 so if my friend wanted to marry his GF, he would have to pay a minimum of $5000 for the ring(which is just a freaking symbol and a $100 ring has the EXACT SAME MEANING but that's a whole different subject).  He dumped her a week later. Told me he estimated he spent close to $2,000 on her in that years span. She never paid for ANYTHING. She bought him a $150 watch tough.  I told him at least that's better than a coffee or pack of gum. That woman was willing to sell herself for a price.

Another friend dated a woman that was just visiting from Minnesota. She told him that she would continue to date him only if he flew to Minnesota or flew her out to California anytime he wanted to see her. Long story short, he married her because of the money invested(his words were, I can't let that money and time be wasted). We were all discussing it after a baseball game and she's like, I didn't let the distance get in the way. His response was, if I didn't pay for everything, you wouldn't have dated or married me. She laughed and said, yeah that's true. He pretty much BOUGHT his wife. I have more personal examples like this as many of you no doubt do. I am sure many here STILL pay for everything  if though they are married. Many people will tell you a man's money is his and his wives and a woman's money is strictly hers.  I find that insane but it doesn't matter what I think.

Things don't need to make sense. This drug thing doesn't make sense but it doesn't need to. Dating being legalized prostitution doesn't make sense but it doesn't need to. A lot of things just are. You accept it or you don't. If you want to date a woman that will pay her way and is genuine about it, you have every right to. You are not going to go on many dates. If you pay for everything, you will fare much much much much better. Put 2 equally attractive men in front of a woman and tell her man A will pay for everything and man B would like it if you paid your share. Any guesses which man she chooses?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beatlesrule said:

If a man or woman(99% of the time it's a man) is paying for all of the dates, food, drinks, entertainment etc and is having sex, it's a loophole in the system and is legalized prostitution. The only difference is instead of handing them money for sex(illegal) they buy them food and drinks and movie tickets, gifts etc(legal).

I will go ahead and guess that many guys here got their current wives this way. What I mean by this is when they dated their now future wives, they(the man)paid for everything. The woman might have reached for their credit card or cash but society/dating coaches etc teach men that if they let a woman pay her half(not even the whole bill just what they ate or date or their movie ticket etc), they will not see that woman ever again. Many women say this is true and that the reach/offer to pay her half is a test and if the man accepts the offer, he will not get a second/ third whatever date. Women lose nothing financially while men do.

Doesn't matter that more and more women are working and making more and more money. Men still are expected by MOST women(not all)but MOST to pay for every date, every trip, everything. Once in awhile, the woman might buy the guy a coffee or pack of gum but it's pretty much always one sided.

Basically the rule is penis pays. To me, if a man is paying for everything on a date, the woman is doing him a favor. She's like "I will grace you with my presence as long as you are paying for everything."

I thought dating was about 2 people getting to know each other and seeing if things can move beyond a physical attraction. Boy was I wrong. It's quite fascinating that you can have sex by paying for her food and entertainment and bills but if you hand her money to have sex, you get arrested. 

Dating is backwards in my opinion. When you were first getting to know someone you shouldn't be spending a lot of money on them. You both should should be paying your way and seeing if the other person is worth investing in. Later on when you both really know you are into each other and like each other or maybe even love each other, you can then start paying for the other person and buying them gifts Etc and the woman would buy him stuff, pay for him too.

I will buy my friends and family things and treat them for dinner etc but it's because I know them and have for a long time so I know they are worth it.

I have friends that told me they simply got married because they invested too much money into their wives. I had one friend that dated a woman for a year and she told him that any engagement ring her bought her if he was thinking about marrying her would have to cost double what her ex husband paid for that ring. EX spent $2500 so if my friend wanted to marry his GF, he would have to pay a minimum of $5000 for the ring(which is just a freaking symbol and a $100 ring has the EXACT SAME MEANING but that's a whole different subject).  He dumped her a week later. Told me he estimated he spent close to $2,000 on her in that years span. She never paid for ANYTHING. She bought him a $150 watch tough.  I told him at least that's better than a coffee or pack of gum. That woman was willing to sell herself for a price.

Another friend dated a woman that was just visiting from Minnesota. She told him that she would continue to date him only if he flew to Minnesota or flew her out to California anytime he wanted to see her. Long story short, he married her because of the money invested(his words were, I can't let that money and time be wasted). We were all discussing it after a baseball game and she's like, I didn't let the distance get in the way. His response was, if I didn't pay for everything, you wouldn't have dated or married me. She laughed and said, yeah that's true. He pretty much BOUGHT his wife. I have more personal examples like this as many of you no doubt do. I am sure many here STILL pay for everything  if though they are married. Many people will tell you a man's money is his and his wives and a woman's money is strictly hers.  I find that insane but it doesn't matter what I think.

Things don't need to make sense. This drug thing doesn't make sense but it doesn't need to. Dating being legalized prostitution doesn't make sense but it doesn't need to. A lot of things just are. You accept it or you don't. If you want to date a woman that will pay her way and is genuine about it, you have every right to. You are not going to go on many dates. If you pay for everything, you will fare much much much much better. Put 2 equally attractive men in front of a woman and tell her man A will pay for everything and man B would like it if you paid your share. Any guesses which man she chooses?

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@beatlesrule, I think it really depends upon the woman. Undoubtedly some want to find the best monetary provider they can, but others -- especially independent women -- care more about other factors. And I'm not sure how old you are or when you last went on a date, but things have changed somewhat. Women are more autonomous and independent, at least among the sub-set I've interacted with. When I did a bit of dating a couple years ago after my divorce, the women paid for their share. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was a woman, and a man was a bitch and a victim, I too would expect him to pay for things, because, well he is a bitch and a victim.  

I’ve been married, twice, divorced once, pay a ton each month in alimony, and I still laugh at when guys come across as victims because they have to pay for stuff on dates.  “I’ve invested too much to not get married”, anyone with the frame of mind is a gigantic douce bag and deserves anything that comes his way.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

@beatlesrule, I think it really depends upon the woman. Undoubtedly some want to find the best monetary provider they can, but others -- especially independent women -- care more about other factors. And I'm not sure how old you are or when you last went on a date, but things have changed somewhat. Women are more autonomous and independent, at least among the sub-set I've interacted with. When I did a bit of dating a couple years ago after my divorce, the women paid for their share. 

39. I've never really dated a woman that would pay her share. Some we agree to split ahead of time but any that we paid our share on the first or second date, she ghosted me or I didn't feel an attraction. I went on a date last month with a girl that lived in Downtown LA 32 miles away from me. Found out she needed to be picked up because she got in a car accident. Long story short, I became her free uber driver that bought her lunch. She ghosted me. She was 28. Before her, I went out with a 52 year old and I show up and she was with her friend and 2 kids. I was just expecting her. She did not want a 2nd date because I didn't offer to buy her all 4 of them drinks. Not just her, ALL 4 of them. I was chatting with a 51 year old woman last week that expected the man to pay and even open the car door for her. F that.

I try to find women that will pay their share on dates but it's incredibly difficult so I rarely ever date. Only went out with the LA chick because I was getting rusty. It's way easier to date a woman if I pay for everything sure and MOST guys do this but I am trying to find a woman that will date me for me and not for what food I can buy her or things I can buy her etc. It's very difficult. I am not at the point in my life where I am willing to purchase a GF or wife. Stradling's alimony story terrifies me. Proves just how many money hungry women are out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread...from Skaggs and Kay to fentanyl to drug legalization to Strad's alimony to beatlesrule's dating woes. Love it.

Seriously, though, @beatlesrule, not that you're asking for my advice, but I think part of the problem with modern dating is that it is too contrived - with the online "shopping" (and selling) of dating sites, audition dates, etc. I'd suggest just putting "finding someone" out of your mind and engage in activities that you enjoy, which opens the door for meeting someone who will like you for who you are. Its like we've forgotten how to just be natural and let things flow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...