jam40jeff

The old bar at Great Lakes.

^I know this is risky, but check my avatar for the best beer to come out of Great Lakes.

Dave Chapelle

I think the problem is, what argument is there for making it illegal that could not be applied to cigarettes and alcohol? It is not chemically addictive, that is the major thing that sets it apart from many other illegal drugs. Emotionally addictive, yes, but so are MANY legal substances (and activities for that matter).

My point was where do you draw the line. If you say making marijuana legal opens the door to making everything else legal, then what is the argument for those other possibly lethal agents being legal?

UrbanOhio

That it doesn't cause hallucinations? Seriously, though, couldn't your same argument be applied to alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, television, bungee jumping...

LOL, I realized that after I posted. That angle is horrible and I'll just have to know not to stand directly perpendicular to the signs and stare at them. :) I actually like the signs a lot better seeing them from that view. Maybe my lack of artistic talent makes it hard for me to visualize what these would actually look like in the actual context they will be placed in. Here's hoping the artists know better than I do.

I know many people who used to play poker online (and waste a lot of money) that don't anymore because it has been made a lot harder to play with real money online. No, this will not stop those who are hard-core addicted, but it's not as if it's binary, you're addicted or you're not. There are those who may become addicted if it is easier to gamble...and since they outlawed online gambling in the US, a downtown casino would be much easier than gambling online.

Absolutely...they are there to make (a lot of) money, not give back, and I feel they do much more bad for the community than good.

My comparison is that casinos are enablers rather than helping those with a problem. For many people I know, gambling is more of a phase or pass-the-time-when-bored type of activity than an addiction, but when they get hooked on it (for various reasons) it can easily turn into an addiction. I don't think a casino would be the only way people would become addicted to gambling, but I firmly believe it would have that affect on many people that may not otherwise become addicted to gambling.

I wouldn't mind the Parisian Metro signs. :) Maybe it's just that I tend to like classically-styled things better, but to me the modern designs seem extremely boring. Too many straight lines and perfect curves. Not being an artist, I can't put it into words to well, other than to say a perfect example of what I can't stand isn't so much the signs themselves, but whatever that red upside-down V-type structure is to the left of the sign. It just screams "UGLY" at me.

I'm tired of hearing this argument. Some people will gamble either way...some will never gamble. And MANY people will gamble some, but would gamble MUCH more if it's easily accessible. So, even though a lot of people gamble, shoving it in their face would make it much more popular. I don't think that's what needs to be done. That would be like replacing drug rehab programs with free drugs because "they're just going to do drugs anyways". Yes, there is a huge burden on the city when crime is raised. Beyond the extra cost, many police and ambulances have to concentrate on one area, thinning the available resources for the rest of the city. Many people that love Cleveland love the fact that it is nothing like Vegas.

Am I the only person who's tired of modern art's overemphasis of gradients and simple shapes?

Thanks Mom. :-P

Definitely...there is plenty of good rap out there...it just doesn't make its way onto the radio. Most mainstream music is garbage, and I believe it pushes an agenda.

Yeah, there are a lot of studs performing there. :-P

I've heard this countless times recently from right-wingers. It is simply untrue. Only under perfect conditions (perfect competition, perfect consumer information, etc.) do the laws of supply and demand work as advertised. In this case, companies will not make a profit. This is why companies will try to form a monopoly (or use collusion) to skew the market. Also, the power of advertising (and the fact that no consumer has equal access to all places and never can have perfect information) adds to the problem. This is why the top 10 fast food establishments are also the 10 that spend the most in advertising. So, no, the free market actually is what allows corporations to spin out of control. The government's main function in the corporate world *should be* to limit the power of corporations to affect these changes on the market, through Anti-Trust laws and the like. Supply and demand free market capitalism is as much of a myth as Communism. I know that's very unpopular to sya in this country, but it's the truth.

And are not trains being used increasingly more than roads and highways? Regardless, KJP probably should have said "those who use roads or highways very little".

.

Actually, I believe you will also be affected if you have cable, but no cable box (old school straight to the TV tuner style). ^^^^^x5: I used to pay off everything, too, until I bought a house. :) It would be nice to get back to that point.

Wouldn't that indicate there is an extremely high demand for them?

That was geared to all of us, including myself. I have been pruned a few too many times. :) No. The people who are using this subsidized public infrastructure are paying the government to create this infrastructure for them, as well as many people who are not using it. It's no different than any other program the government runs. It's welfare for suburbanites, funneling money from ALL to SOME, and in this case usually to those who need it the least. No, as I said before, make roads private and toll and you will be paying the market cost. Here is why you are not: If you drive 50,000 miles in a year and I drive 5,000, will you pay 10 times as many taxes as I will for road construction and maintenance? "People" don't want suburbs, "some people" do. Just because you want them doesn't mean that everyone does. But that isn't what we are talking about, because we are not talking about forcing our opinion on others...we are talking about putting both sides on equal footing to see what the market really says. Another problem is that the true costs of suburbanization to society are hidden and are felt collectively, similar to the way pollution from a company affects everyone. For those wanting a suburban environment, there may be a large individual benefit, but the large cost is spread out amongst everyone, so for the individual it is worth it. Just because some people want something doesn't mean the government should subsidize it, especially if that something is detrimental to the country as a whole. Furthermore, I question how much people really like the suburban environment, or how much they are used to it being safe and like being spread out because of bad experiences in the city when they became poorer after the suburban boom started. But that veers off into opinion-land since it is next to impossible to prove, so I know we will just work ourselves in circles if we try to argue that point.

Isn't that one of the reasons people move to Avon?

There's a big difference between reading (let alone comprehending) and picking out a quote from a post. Which of the three did you do? And even if you did read the article, your ad hominem attack on KJP is (1) unfounded and (2) says nothing about the argument at hand. EDIT: Let's try to keep this on topic. Most people here will back up their statements with facts. Instead of getting upset, try to prove we are wrong about government funding sprawl.